Get Scene Checklist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a scene checklist and performs chapter-level aggregate validation on specific criteria. The verb '返回' implies a read-only operation, providing some transparency about its non-mutating nature.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes specific validation checks. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns, including the specific checks (missing satisfactions, missing chapter-end hooks). It doesn't describe the full response structure, but the core functionality is clearly communicated.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention project_id or scene_id at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description adds no additional meaning about required formats, relationships, or usage.

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 '返回' (returns) and resource '场景 checklist' with additional validation details (缺爽点/缺章末钩子). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling get_chapter_checklist by mentioning chapter-level aggregation within a scene context.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving a scene checklist but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_chapter_checklist or other sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative mentions.

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