sing_probe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a diagnostic probe over external binaries, GPU availability, model assets, and directory writability, which tells the agent it may be slow and environment-dependent. It omits an explicit statement that it is read-only / side-effect-free, which would have closed the gap fully.

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?

Front-loads the check list, then explains the three return fields, then ends with the usage cue — a logical order with no filler. The component enumeration is long but each item is a distinct thing an agent may need to report back, so it earns its space.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: aiReady, aiMissing, and originalReady are each defined along with their meaning for whether a cover or original segment is possible. Combined with the enumerated checks, an agent can call it and interpret the result without anything else.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly spends no words on input arguments and instead allocates them to output interpretation, which is the right trade for a no-arg tool.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('检查唱歌链路是否就绪') and enumerates exactly which components are probed: yt-dlp, ffmpeg, torch/CUDA, demucs, RVC project, voice model, contentvec, output-dir writability. That makes it clearly separable from siblings sing_search and sing_cover, which perform the actual singing work rather than the pre-flight check.

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?

Explicitly says to call it first when confirming 'can I sing right now', which anchors its place relative to sing_cover. It stops short of naming the siblings or stating when not to call it (e.g. after a known-good run), so it is clear but not fully routing.

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