manual_checklist

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the tool's limitation (it does not perform verification, only generates a human checklist), but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects or state changes result, or what the caller should expect from the 'name' input.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose followed by the constraint. There is no padding, though the second sentence could more tightly connect to the parameter or output.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the purpose plus human-verification caveat give a workable picture. However, for a tool whose only input is entirely undocumented, the definition leaves the caller guessing about the meaning of 'name', so it is only minimally complete.

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 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what it represents (company name, report name, or dimension). The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap on the only input.

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 names a specific action (生成人工必查清单) and enumerates the contents of the checklist (official channel entry points, search terms, record-keeping requirements), so an agent can tell this produces a checklist rather than records findings or evidence like its siblings. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from tools such as manual_record or manual_findings, which keeps it shy of a 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?

It gives a clear usage context: dimensions that are blocked by WAF/captcha must be reviewed by a human because the tool does not substitute for human verification in the official system. This establishes when the tool is appropriate, though it offers no explicit routing to or from the alternatives like probe_sources or manual_record.

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