Compute Weights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and fails it: it does not say whether weights are persisted or merely returned, whether the computation is deterministic, whether it mutates pool state, or what permissions/project scope are needed. Only the pool-scoping constraint is implied.

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 seven-character phrase is technically concise but is under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no front-loaded framing of purpose, inputs, or outcome to structure an agent's decision.

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 computation tool in a large narrative-engine toolset with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the computation's result and prerequisites. It omits both, so an agent cannot confidently 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, and the description adds no meaning for 'pool_id' (required) or 'project_id' (optional) — notably it never explains why an optional project scope exists alongside a pool id. Nothing compensates for the schema gap.

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 phrase '计算池内事件权重' names a concrete verb (compute) and a concrete object (event weights inside a pool), so the basic operation is inferable. However, it says nothing about what these weights are used for, what 'pool' scoping means, or how this differs from the sibling 'explain_weight', leaving the purpose only half-specified.

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 indication of when this tool should be invoked, what prerequisite state is required (e.g., that the pool must already be registered via 'register_pool'), or which sibling to use instead for related weight inspection (e.g., 'explain_weight'). Usage must be entirely inferred.

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