get_analysis_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-like nature (“获取”) and the output shape (template analysis workflow and tool list), which is useful. It does not mention limitations, behavior on unsupported scenario values, or how the template is generated, so the disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences with the main purpose front-loaded. The structured “输入/输出” breakdown adds clarity without repetition or fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one required parameter, an output schema exists, and the description covers the main purpose, input, and output nature. The main missing piece is a definitive list of accepted scenario values, but the examples and output schema mitigate this gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 schema provides only a string parameter “scenario” with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It gives examples of valid scenario types (gene research, drug discovery, disease analysis), giving the agent a general sense of valid input. It does not provide exact machine-readable keys or behavior for arbitrary values, so compensation is partial.

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: “获取常见分析场景的模板方案” (obtain template solutions for common analysis scenarios). It defines the output as a templated workflow and tool list, which clearly differentiates it from the sibling search/lookup tools even without naming one explicitly. It does not explicitly contrast with a sibling, keeping it 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 “输入：场景类型(基因研究/药物发现/疾病分析等)” line implies when to use the tool: when the agent is faced with a common analysis scenario such as gene research or drug discovery. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it name alternative tools or describe a decision process between this and other tools.

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