find_change_candidates

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key interpretation rule ('wording differences do not equal change') and implies the output is a set of endpoint pairs, which gives meaningful insight into the algorithm's behavior. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires special permissions, or any other operational constraints, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat about wording differences follows naturally. Every clause adds value, and the structure is easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return formats. However, the description does not explain the 'endpoint pair' concept, clarify the 'limit' behavior, nor situate the tool among its eight siblings, leaving an agent to guess when to choose this over alternatives.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds meaning to 'topic' by specifying it should be a clear/definite theme, but 'limit' is completely unaddressed and its semantics (max number of candidates, rank ordering) must be inferred from the schema's default value. A more thorough description would explain both parameters explicitly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('提出变化候选端点对' — propose change candidate endpoint pairs) and its unique resource/format ('最早端点 × 最近端点'), which distinguishes it from siblings like find_interval_events or get_topic_timeline. It also adds a precise boundary condition ('措辞差异不等于变化'), reinforcing what counts as a change, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase '围绕明确主题' (around a clear topic) implies that this tool is appropriate when the user has a well-specified theme, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool compared to the listed siblings, leaving the routing decision partially to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.