zhiqi_collab_appeal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the auth channel ('仅人类登录态通道 A'), which is a useful context, but it does not disclose side effects, success/failure outcomes, reversibility, or any other behavioral traits. For a mutation-like action (appeal), this is a significant 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 very concise (one short sentence), which is structurally simple and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is too sparse to be effective; it omits necessary details about parameters and behavior. It's concise but not appropriately sized for the information required.

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 tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the appeal process, expected outcomes, prerequisites, or any related context. An agent would be guessing about the appeal semantics and parameter usage, making it inadequate for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of 'timeoutId' or 'reason' at all. It mentions 'timeout' in the tool name but not in the parameter context. The agent has no guidance on what values to provide or what format the reason should take. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a clear verb 'appeal' (提出申诉) and a specific resource 'timeout' (超时), making the purpose understandable. It also adds a channel restriction ('仅人类登录态通道 A'), which helps distinguish it from related collab tools like zhiqi_collab_timeouts (listing) and zhiqi_collab_approvals (approvals). However, it doesn't explicitly state what 'appeal' entails or how it differs from other action tools, so it's not a full 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The channel restriction is a constraint, not a usage guideline. It doesn't say 'use this when you disagree with a timeout' or mention any prerequisites or conditions. The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling list.

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