发送注册短信验证码

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions sending an SMS but omits behavioral details like rate limits, idempotency, or error cases. The description also contradicts the input schema by implying phone and captcha parameters, while the schema only has flowId, causing confusion.

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 concise sentence, but it lacks structure and fails to convey essential information like parameter meaning and usage order. It is minimally adequate but could be better organized.

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 there is no output schema and the parameter is poorly documented, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how the tool fits into the registration flow among many sibling tools.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the flowId parameter. It mentions phone and captcha, which are not in the schema, leaving the agent unable to determine what flowId should represent. This is a critical 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 clearly states the tool sends a registration SMS after receiving phone and captcha. The verb 'send' and resource 'registration SMS verification code' are specific. Although it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like auth_send_sms_code, the name and title provide sufficient differentiation.

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 vs alternatives. It lacks prerequisites (e.g., needing a captcha first) and fails to specify conditions under which the tool should or shouldn't be used. The description is purely functional without context.

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