analyze_pacingDetect pacing problems in game narratives by checking consecutive high-tension beats, emotional interruptions, and reveal timing. Use it to adjust story rhythm and prevent fatigue.
检查连续高压、情绪打断、揭示节拍等问题
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| curve_id | Yes | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| consecutive_high_count | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not say whether this is a read-only analysis or a mutation, whether it requires auth, or what the result contains. It only restates the check categories already implied by the tool name, adding almost no behavioral context.
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 single Chinese phrase is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise — for a three-parameter analytical tool the brevity leaves the agent without the information it needs.
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 annotation coverage, zero schema description coverage, no output schema, and three parameters (one required), the description is not complete enough to invoke the tool reliably. It omits parameter meaning, usage context, and return behavior, and is even written in a different language from the tool name and siblings.
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 should explain the three parameters, but it only loosely gestures at consecutive_high_count via '连续高压'. Neither curve_id (required) nor project_id is explained, and it never clarifies whether counts are thresholds that change the analysis behavior.
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 names a specific analytical verb (检查/check) and lists three concrete pacing problems (consecutive high tension, emotional interruption, reveal beats), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes this tool from close siblings such as configure_pacing or suggest_next_beat, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone why it should pick this one.
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, what preconditions apply (e.g. an existing curve_id), or which alternative (configure_pacing) should be used instead. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the parameter list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.