get_logic_analysis_scaffold

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only and lists its capabilities, including what it does not do. This provides sufficient transparency about behavior, and there is no contradiction since annotations are absent.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the main purpose, the second lists components and exclusions. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or superfluous information.

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?

Given zero parameters and an output schema (which is not shown but exists), the description provides a high-level overview of what the scaffold contains. It is likely sufficient for agent selection, though more detail on the output format could be helpful but is not required.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter information because there are none to document. It does not need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 explicitly states it returns a read-only scaffold for logic analysis reasoning, listing specific components like problem-type routing and constraint extraction. It clearly distinguishes from sibling scaffolds by focusing on logic analysis, and includes a negative statement about not solving questions, which adds clarity.

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 description says it does not solve questions or select answers, which guides the agent to avoid using it for answer generation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other related tools like route_xingce_question or other scaffolds. The exclusion is clear but comparative use is not addressed.

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