Suggest Next Scenes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool outputs candidate scenes and supports constraint filtering, but does not state whether it has side effects, requires permissions, or what happens to inputs. The read-only nature is only implied by 'output', not explicit.

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 sentence, efficiently conveying the core function and key capability of constraint filtering. It is taut but not under-specified, striking a good balance.

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?

The tool has a nested parameter object and no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return format or provide sufficient context about the 'advance_operators' and 'previous change' inputs, which could confuse an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly. It is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 describes count and constraints with details, but project_id lacks a description. The description adds meaning by explaining that constraints serve as filters and that the tool operates on advance_operators and the previous change, which are not in the schema. This adds some context beyond the structured fields.

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 outputs candidate scenes ('输出候选场景') based on advance_operators and the previous scene change, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like split_chapter_to_scenes or update_scene by focusing on suggestion rather than modification, though it doesn't name alternatives.

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 the tool is used after an advance_operators action and previous scene change, giving context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other scene-related tools, nor any exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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