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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says almost nothing: it does not disclose persistence, permissions, whether duplicate names are allowed, whether the character is bound to a world/story, or what the response returns. '创建新的' implies a mutation but no mutation behavior is characterized.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The trailing '等信息' is slightly vague padding, but overall there is no wasted structure.

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 5-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate because the schema fully documents the inputs. It leaves unaddressed the creation context (relationship to sheZhiShiJieGuan/world settings) and any notion of what a successful creation yields.

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 all five fields (mingZi, xingGe, waiMao, beiJing, guanXi) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes a subset of those fields and adds no format, constraint, or relationship semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('创建') and resource ('小说人物') and enumerates the kinds of data involved (姓名、性格、背景), so an agent can tell it apart from the read/list siblings like huoQuRenWu and lieJuRenWu. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The agent must infer from the verb alone that this is the write counterpart to lieJuRenWu/huoQuRenWu, and nothing says whether a world setting or existing characters must exist first.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it says the tool creates a new chapter and records content, it does not mention permissions required, whether it overwrites existing chapters, what happens on duplicate chapter numbers, or what the response looks like. The lengthy writing guidelines are domain content requirements, not operational behavior of the tool itself.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the description then expands into eight detailed writing rules plus a file reference, making it quite long for a tool definition. While each rule is specific and actionable, much of this content could be a separate writing prompt rather than embedded in the tool description.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides important context: it clarifies the tool's role, lists a critical prerequisite, and includes detailed writing standards that are essential for correct invocation. It falls short only in not describing the tool's operational behavior or expected return, but for a creative writing assistant, the guidance is largely complete.

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 five parameters. The description does not add any syntax, format, or constraint details for individual parameters (e.g., valid ranges for zhangJieHao, max length for neiRong). With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb and resource: '创建新章节，记录章节内容和大纲' (create a new chapter, record chapter content and outline). This distinguishes it from sibling read/list tools like huoQuZhangJie and lieJuZhangJie. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

The description explicitly states a prerequisite: '写新章节前必须先用huoQuZhangJie读取前3章内容' (before writing a new chapter, must first use huoQuZhangJie to read the previous 3 chapters). It also gives strict adherence rules to an outline and references a writing standard file. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to other creation tools like chuangJianRenWu.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only bulk retrieval via 获取所有, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what happens when no plot clues exist — all relevant for a 'get all' tool. This is largely redundant with the name rather than adding behavioral context.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope word front and center, carrying zero filler. For a simple zero-param tool this is appropriately sized.

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 trivial zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers the essentials — what is fetched and that everything is returned. It stops there, offering no sense of the result's structure or volume, which is the minimum viable but not generous level of completeness.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly signals a no-argument, retrieve-everything operation, which matches the empty schema and adds nothing misleading.

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 verb and resource (获取 = retrieve, 剧情线索 = plot clues/threads) and adds the scope qualifier 所有 (all). An agent can identify what the tool returns without opening the schema. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the write counterpart 添加剧情线索 (add plot clue), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus siblings such as 添加剧情线索 or 获取章节. The word 所有 weakly implies an unfiltered read, but no alternative or condition is named, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. '获取' implies a read, but nothing is said about whether a missing character errors or returns empty, whether matching is exact or fuzzy, or what the '详细信息' payload contains.

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?

A single short sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than earned conciseness.

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 one-parameter lookup this is minimally adequate, but with no output schema the description should say more about the returned '详细信息' structure and lookup failure behavior. It leaves the agent guessing at return semantics.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter mingZi is already documented as '人物姓名' in the schema. The description adds no matching rules, format, or ambiguity handling beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('获取指定人物' – get the specified character) and signals a detail-level retrieval via '详细信息'. It is distinguishable from a list tool, but it does not name or contrast with its obvious siblings (lieJuRenWu, chuangJianRenWu) to sharpen selection.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text when to prefer this over lieJuRenWu (list) or how a name is expected to be matched.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. '获取' implies a read, but nothing is said about permissions, what happens when the requested 类型 does not exist, or what the response contains. Only the bare minimum is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a one-phrase description, an agent lacks the context needed to call this confidently — particularly which 类型 values are valid and what a successful or failed lookup returns.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own '设定类型' label, and notably does not enumerate valid type values (0 enums), which would have been the highest-value addition.

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 '获取世界观设定' states a clear verb (获取/get) and resource (世界观设定/worldview setting), which is useful given the tool name is transliterated pinyin. However, it essentially restates the name and adds no distinguishing detail against siblings like 设置世界观 or 获取人物.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling getters/setters (获取人物, 设置世界观, 获取剧情线, etc.). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only says it 'retrieves content' – no disclosure about permissions, error cases (invalid chapter number), output format, or whether this is a pure read.

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?

A single, efficient sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the action and resource. Appropriately terse for a simple one-parameter tool.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse – it doesn't explain what 'content' includes (text only? metadata? nested scenes?) or how a missing chapter is handled, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the single parameter zhangJieHao (章节号) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or constraint details beyond that 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 states a clear verb+resource: retrieve the content of a specified chapter. It's specific enough to distinguish from siblings like lieJuZhangJie (list chapters) and chuangJianZhangJie (create chapter), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the understandably narrow purpose of fetching a chapter's content, but there's no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like listing chapters first to obtain a valid chapter number.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says it generates inspiration and advice but doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only or mutating, what output format to expect, or whether any external state is affected.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It immediately conveys the core action and resource without 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 generative tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits practically all behavioral and output context—such as return format, how the context parameter influences the result, and whether any state changes.

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 both parameters (leiXing and shangXiaWen) including example values for leiXing. The description adds no meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 verb ('生成') and resource ('创作灵感和建议') tied to existing content. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the CRUD-oriented siblings (e.g., 创建/列出/获取 characters, scenes, plotlines), but the generative ideation purpose is clear enough to distinguish it in practice.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It only implies usage through the phrase '基于现有内容', leaving the agent with no routing logic.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether results are paginated, how many entries are returned, the ordering, or what happens for users with no created characters - all relevant for a listing tool with no output schema.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, stating the operation up front. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list tool the description is minimally adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the return shape, ordering, and result size entirely unspecified.

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 there is nothing for the description to document beyond what is structurally provided. Baseline 4 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('列出所有已创建的人物' - list all created characters), which clearly conveys what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling huoQuRenWu (fetch character), which an agent could easily confuse with this listing operation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as huoQuRenWu. The word '所有' (all) implies a bulk listing use case, but this is left entirely to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that results are lightweight overviews rather than full chapter content, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, size limits, or read-only safety for what is presumably a bulk read.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with no filler; the scope qualifier (概览) is placed immediately after the core verb+resource.

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 simple no-parameter list tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should describe the shape of a 'chapter overview' (which fields come back, ordering) so the agent knows what it will receive.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming the call is argument-free. Baseline of 4 applies for a 0-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (章节) plus an output scope (概览), so the agent knows this enumerates chapters rather than fetching one. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as huoQuZhangJie or lieJuRenWu, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'all' implies no filtering is possible, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer huoQuZhangJie for a single chapter, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('设置或更新') but says nothing about whether existing settings are overwritten or merged, whether the caller needs an existing entry, or what permissions/scope apply. For an unannotated write tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single short clause, front-loaded with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation target, the description should explain the upsert behavior and result. It instead provides only a restated purpose, leaving an agent unable to predict the effect on existing worldbuilding entries.

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% — both leiXing (type, with examples like magic system, geography, history) and neiRong (detailed content) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, length, or naming-convention detail beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb pair and resource: '设置或更新世界观设定' (set or update worldbuilding settings). An agent can tell this writes world-building lore, but the description never references the sibling read tool huoQuShiJieGuan, leaving sibling differentiation to inference from names alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling query tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The word '或更新' implies an upsert path but doesn't say when update applies versus initial set.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but does not disclose permissions needed, whether existing plot lines are affected, return values, or how the new clue integrates with existing story data.

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 short phrase with no filler, and it front-loads the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for such a simple tool, though it is slightly too terse to earn a 5.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four parameters, the description omits when to use it, behavioral traits such as required permissions, and any output expectations. The schema covers parameter documentation, but the description leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke confidently.

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%, and each parameter (mingCheng, miaoShu, zhuangTai, xiangGuanZhangJie) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('添加') and resource ('剧情线索'), clearly indicating creation of a plot thread. It does not explicitly differentiate from the retrieval sibling huoQuJuQingXian or other creation tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. '追踪故事发展' is a vague rationale, not guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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