get_common_questions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '获取' implies a read-only retrieval operation, and the resource indicates the kind of content returned. However, it does not describe return format, category filtering behavior, or any potential side effects — though for a simple FAQ retrieval tool, the implied read-only nature is likely sufficient.

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 that states the action and the purpose. It is front-loaded with the core function ('获取书法学习中常见问题的解答') and contains no redundant or filler content. Every part 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 is simple: one optional parameter, fully documented, with no output schema. The description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (answers to common questions) and the intended benefit. It lacks explicit return structure or usage guidance, but those are either covered by the schema or minor for this level of complexity.

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 input schema fully documents the single optional 'category' parameter with its enum values and Chinese descriptions, providing 100% schema coverage. The description itself does not add parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb '获取' (get/fetch) and a clear resource: '书法学习中常见问题的解答' (answers to common calligraphy learning questions). It clearly conveys what the tool does, and the resource is distinct enough from sibling tools like get_technique_guide or get_master_info. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings or mention what it is not.

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 description implies usage when learners have questions or confusion during their calligraphy study ('帮助用户解决学习过程中的困惑'). It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as query_calligraphy or get_learning_plan, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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