douyin_breakdown

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

The annotations carry only a title, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key runtime trait: it is slower than douyin_parse because it performs download plus speech recognition, and the transcribe flag reduces work. It does not address permissions, login state, or failure modes for non-public targets.

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?

One dense paragraph that front-loads what the output package contains, then the cost comparison, then the parameter shortcut. Every clause carries information; nothing is filler.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned components and explains the latency/transcribe tradeoff, which is what an agent needs before calling. It omits auth or target-visibility prerequisites, a minor gap given how self-contained the rest is.

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 engine, target, comments and transcribe, including the transcribe default and the 'only data and comments when off' behavior. The description repeats that transcribe tradeoff but adds nothing about the engine enum options (local/siliconflow/dashscope) or sensible comment counts, so baseline 3 is right.

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 and resource (拆解一条爆款作品 into a reusable 结构包) and lists exactly what parts are returned: 互动数据、前3秒钩子、口播三段结构、热门评论、话题与音乐. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling douyin_parse, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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 states the intended moment of use (做选题和模仿结构的第一步) and positions douyin_parse as the lighter alternative, with the advice 只要数据就关掉 transcribe. The choice between the two siblings is implied by the cost comparison rather than stated as an explicit rule, so it falls just short of a 5.

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