Analyze Character Arc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only diagnostic or a mutating fix, whether it needs a registered arc, or what form the findings take. Only the general nature (issue detection) is conveyed.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — there is little content to front-load and the description does not earn its place as a routing aid.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the one-line description leaves too much open: input expectations, output shape, and how results differ from other narrative checks. More detail is needed to call it correctly.

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% for two parameters (arc_id, project_id), yet the description names neither. That the tool operates on a character arc weakly implies arc_id, but project_id and the required/optional status are left completely undocumented.

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 states a specific verb (分析/analyze) and resource (角色弧光/character arc), and goes further by naming the class of issues detected (平坦/flat, 矛盾/contradictory). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from adjacent validators such as validate_project, check_canon, or check_ludo_narrative.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many other check/validate/analyze siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g. must the arc already exist, must a project be active). Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.

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