上手引导（3 分钟搞懂怎么用）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the complete payload of the call (onboarding steps, examples, cheat sheet, privacy notice), which makes the read-only, side-effect-free nature evident. It stops short of stating idempotency or cost/latency traits, but for a zero-parameter info tool this is adequate coverage.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the return contents, then a fallback cue. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does so item by item. For a 0-parameter onboarding tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, avoiding noise.

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 states a specific purpose (first-run onboarding) and enumerates exactly what it returns: a 4-step flow, copy-paste example prompts, a full tool cheat sheet, and a privacy statement. It is clearly distinct from data-oriented siblings like data_info or jobok_workflow, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

"第一次使用时调用" gives an explicit trigger condition, and "不确定该说什么时先看这个" adds a second, complementary one for confused agents. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the first-use framing strongly implies it is not meant to be called repeatedly.

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