douyin-prohibited-word

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 only states what the tool detects ('敏感词') but does not explain what the output looks like, whether it returns the matched words, severity levels, suggestions, or just a pass/fail result. It also doesn't mention any limitations such as the word list being fixed or updated periodically.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the platform and purpose. It wastes no words, though it could add a bit more behavioral detail without becoming verbose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. An agent does not know what the return result will be, whether the tool flags offending words or just returns true/false, or whether there are any platform-specific nuances. The sibling tool 'multi-wordcheck' might be a better candidate for multi-platform checks, but the description doesn't help an agent choose.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter 'content' is already documented as '待检测文案内容' (copy content to be checked). The description adds the context that it's for Douyin prohibited-word detection, but it doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as expected format, length limits, or language requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('检测' / check) and resource ('抖音违禁词' / Douyin prohibited words), and the input schema confirms it takes copy text. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'xiaohongshu-prohibited-word' or the multi-platform 'multi-wordcheck', so it lacks direct sibling distinction.

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: use this when checking Douyin copy for prohibited/sensitive words. But there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives like 'xiaohongshu-prohibited-word' or 'multi-wordcheck' for other platforms. Usage context is clear from the platform-specific name, but exclusions are missing.

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