propose_strategy_tiered

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states the tool returns approval level and status but does not disclose whether it mutates state, creates records, triggers notifications, or has any side effects. The term '提议' suggests proposing, but the actual behavior (e.g., if it persists the strategy) is unclear. This is insufficient for an agent to understand consequences.

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 sentence followed by a parenthetical list of approval levels. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the list format could be clearer, and the sentence structure is somewhat dense. It earns its place by being short and informative.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description mentions return values (level and status) but does not specify their format or fields. The tool has 4 parameters and is moderately complex, but the description does not explain how the approval level is determined (e.g., criteria) or what the status values are. It covers the basics but lacks details for full autonomous usage.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add meaning. The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation of 3.

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 purpose: proposing a strategy with tiered approval. It explicitly lists the approval levels (auto, peer, admin, super) and mentions the return of level and status. It differentiates from sibling 'propose_strategy' by specifying '分级审批' (tiered approval), making the purpose distinct and actionable.

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 the tool is for submitting strategies for automatic tiered approval but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'propose_strategy' or 'approve_strategy'. There is no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or context for the different categories. The mention of 'Hub auto-determines approval level' provides some context but lacks definitive usage rules.

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