lanhu_prepare_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description mentions several actions (fetch, normalize, download, validate, store) and hints at atomicity, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like cache updates, storage location, or whether it is a read-only or mutation operation. The description does not contradict annotations (since none exist), so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 concise single sentence, efficiently summarizing the tool's purpose and actions. It is front-loaded with the main verbs. However, it could be more structured to separate the core action from additional details, but it is still effective.

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?

With an output schema present and high parameter coverage, the description covers the essential actions but misses important contextual information such as when to use it versus siblings, error cases, or prerequisites. The tool's complexity (multi-step pipeline) suggests that more detail could be beneficial, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need for return value explanation.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'atomic store' relevant to design but does not add extra semantics beyond what the schema provides for parameters. The description does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples, so it stays at baseline.

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 action (fetch, normalize, download, validate, atomically store) and specific resource (Lanhu design), making it distinct from typical sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like lanhu_inspect_design or lanhu_generate_unity_prefab, which might also involve fetching and processing designs.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lanhu_inspect_design or lanhu_generate_unity_prefab. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The presence of a 'url' parameter gives some context, but it is insufficient.

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