practice_by_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only says 'practice by drawing questions' and does not disclose side effects, whether progress is recorded, or how question selection works. It also does not mention read-only vs. state-changing behavior, which matters for a practice tool.

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 communicates the core action and the required parameter without wasted words. The parenthetical example is efficient and directly relevant.

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?

The description is too sparse for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations: it covers only topic_point, leaving usage context, selection behavior, and non-topic parameters unaddressed. Even though an output schema exists, the overall context is incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description adds semantics only for topic_point by noting it is required and giving a format example. The other five parameters (n, seed, q_type, hide_answer, topic_subject) are left entirely to schema titles/defaults, and with 0% schema-description coverage the description fails to compensate for that gap.

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 ('抽題練習' – practice by drawing questions) and resource ('依考點' by exam topic), and highlights the required topic_point. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like random_practice or practice_weak.

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 that topic_point is required and provides a concrete example ('抵押權（普通/最高限額）'), implying the tool is for topic-specific drill. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over random_practice or practice_weak, nor any exclusions.

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