Get Scene Prose Summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the 'lightweight validation' of keywords, which gives some insight, but it does not describe what the tool actually returns (a summary text, a boolean, a list of matched keywords), nor whether it is a read-only operation. This ambiguity significantly reduces transparency.

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, terse sentence with no filler words, making it very concise. However, its brevity also leads to under-specification, which slightly reduces structure quality. It earns a 4 because it is efficiently worded, though it sacrifices clarity for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not describe the return value, the exact nature of the keyword check, or the relationships between parameters. A more complete description would address these missing details to help an agent correctly invoke the tool.

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 coverage is only 33% (only max_chars has a description). The tool description does not explain any parameters; it merely implies max_chars via '前 N 字' but does not clarify scene_id or project_id. Since the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, parameter semantics are weakly supported.

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 clearly states the tool's function: reading the first N characters of the scene prose and performing a lightweight validation for goal/change keywords. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene_checklist or get_chapter_checklist, which focus on checklist retrieval rather than prose analysis.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or which scenarios call for this tool as opposed to other scene-related tools such as get_scene_checklist or suggest_next_scenes. The implied usage is minimal and relies on the user's interpretation of 'prose summary'.

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