report

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

With no annotations, the description does useful work by disclosing the output format (Markdown, directly copyable) and the fact that result quality depends on how complete the submitted explanations are. It does not mention read-only nature, failure modes for a missing review, or what happens when no explanation has been submitted.

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?

Two compact sentences with the deliverable front-loaded and the quality caveat second; no wasted text. Slight compression cost: the verb and input are omitted entirely.

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?

Since there is no output schema, it is good that the description explains the return shape (three named tables in Markdown). However, the required input is unexplained and no preconditions (e.g., explanations must have been submitted) are stated explicitly, leaving gaps for a one-parameter generation tool.

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 single required parameter review_id is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer from the schema alone that a review identifier is required and where to obtain it.

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 concretely what the tool produces: three Markdown tables (error table, synonym-substitution table, difficult word/phrase table) that the user can copy. The generating action and use of review_id are only implied, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like submit_explanation or weakness, but the resource is clear.

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 sentence '讲解提交得越完整，表越全' implies a dependency on prior submit_explanation calls and that this tool should be used after explanations exist, but it never states explicitly when to call this versus alternatives such as weakness or method.

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