Suggest Next Beat

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 and discloses nothing: it is silent on whether the call is read-only or mutates project state, whether results are persisted, and whether any permission or setup is required. For a generative suggestion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a real gap.

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 is a single eight-character phrase with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here leaves essential context unstated, which is the same failure mode as a one-word description.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition is incomplete for even a simple tool. Nothing tells the agent how the suggestion is scoped, what it returns, or how it relates to the many sibling beat/thread tools.

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 single parameter 'project_id' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never references it. An agent cannot tell whether project_id is required, what happens when it is omitted, or whether an active project is used instead.

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 '建议下一步叙事节拍' states a clear verb (suggest) and resource (next narrative beat), so an agent knows broadly what it does. However, it does nothing to separate itself from the near-identical sibling 'suggest_beat', leaving the agent unable to choose between them from the description alone.

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 guidance on when to call this, when not to, or which alternative to prefer. The obvious alternative, 'suggest_beat', is never mentioned, and no prerequisites (e.g. an active project or existing beat sheet) are stated.

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