Generate Variants

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, yet it discloses nothing: not whether variants are persisted or ephemeral, whether this is a read or write operation, or how the required base_event and count interact. The description adds no behavioral context at all.

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 phrase is technically concise but is under-specified rather than efficient: it omits the information a caller needs instead of trimming redundancy. Brevity here does not earn its place because it carries almost no content.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested required object, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent has no way to know what a variant is, what count defaults to, or what the tool returns.

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% across three parameters, including a nested base_event object with id/title/weight and a count field. The description supplies no meaning for any parameter, leaving count, project_id, and the nested weight entirely 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 phrase '基于事件生成变体' does state a verb (generate) and resource (variants) plus an input (an event), so the basic purpose is inferable. However it does not distinguish this from siblings like register_event, simulate_run, or suggest_beat, and 'variants' of what (event weights, narrative branches, text?) is ambiguous. Minimum-viable clarity with clear gaps.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the many variant/branch/simulation siblings, no prerequisites, no mention of the required base_event or project context. The agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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