get_technique_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that the tool returns explanatory technique guidance covering several calligraphy topics, which is useful. However, it does not describe the response structure, whether the output is tailored by the level parameter, or any limitations, leaving the agent with incomplete expectations.

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 compact sentence that leads with the main action and resource, then lists the relevant content categories. It contains no filler, no redundant restatement of schema details, and every clause contributes to the agent's understanding.

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?

For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description plus schema covers input selection adequately. But since there is no output schema and no stated return format, the description leaves the agent guessing about whether the result is a single text block, structured sections, or a list of techniques. This keeps it from being fully complete.

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 already documents both parameters with enum values, defaults, and Chinese descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description mostly restates the technique_type enum categories without adding further semantic nuance, so it provides no meaningful value beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action (获取/obtain) and a concrete resource (书法技法指导), then expands that resource into recognizable categories: 执笔, 运笔, 笔画写法, 书体特点. This content profile clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_master_info and get_aesthetic_insight, so an agent can tell what domain it covers.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_calligraphy or get_learning_plan, and it mentions no exclusion conditions. An agent can infer the intended use from the name and content list, but the routing decision is left implicit rather than stated.

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