propose_strategy

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses that admin approval is required before the strategy is searchable/adoptable and that Hub auto-determines sensitivity, but lacks details on side effects, mutability, or error handling.

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?

Description is short (two sentences in Chinese), front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides necessary context. Slightly more structured detail could improve it.

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?

Adequate for a 4-param tool with no output schema, but missing return value info and does not mention error states. Description covers primary purpose and approval flow insufficiently.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema for parameters title, content, category, and task_id.

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?

Description clearly states the verb '提议' (propose) and resource '策略' (strategy), and distinguishes from siblings by adding context about admin approval and automatic sensitivity detection.

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?

Description implies usage for proposing new strategies with approval needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like propose_strategy_tiered or other strategy-related tools.

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