random_practice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only notes that 'hide_answer' can hide the answer, but doesn't disclose behavioral details like whether it's read-only or mutates progress, whether it's deterministic with a seed, or what output format is returned (output schema exists, but that might convey structure). It provides minimal 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is efficient. It is front-loaded with the core function. It doesn't waste words, but could be slightly more informative without losing 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?

The tool has 6 parameters (though all optional), a relatively high complexity, and an output schema exists. However, with zero schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining what each parameter filters on and what the output represents. It omits critical context like the range of 'n', what 'q_type' values are valid, and how the output is structured, leaving the agent to guess.

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 6 parameters have 0% schema description coverage, meaning the schema provides no descriptive text. The description only mentions 'hide_answer' functionality, leaving 'n', 'seed', 'q_type', 'subject', and 'exam_code' without any semantic explanation. Since coverage is low, the description must compensate but fails.

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 says '依條件抽題練習' which indicates it is for practice by drawing questions based on conditions, but it doesn't specify the resource or the exact conditions. It doesn't differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'practice_by_topic' or 'practice_weak', which are also practice-related, leaving ambiguity about the specific use case.

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 implies that it can be used for conditional practice, but does not give any guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling practice tools. It doesn't provide criteria for selection (e.g., 'use for random whole-pool practice, not for topic-specific drills').

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