query_calligraphy

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 clearly conveys that this is a knowledge-query tool that answers questions, and the verb '查询' implies a read-only operation. It does not disclose output format, knowledge source limitations, or how the level parameter changes behavior, so it 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 a single compact sentence that efficiently conveys the core action, resource, and representative domains. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 question-answering tool, the basic invocation requirements are covered by the schema and description. However, there is no output schema, no explanation of how the level parameter affects the answer, and no guidance on when to use specialized sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 100%, and both parameters have meaningful descriptions, including the level enum values. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so a 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 ('查询'/'回答') with a clear resource ('书法知识') and enumerates relevant domains (learning, creation, history, aesthetics). It clearly establishes this as a general calligraphy Q&A tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the specialized sibling tools.

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?

It states that the tool applies to various calligraphy knowledge areas, providing general contextual guidance. However, it does not mention the sibling tools or give explicit criteria for when to choose this tool versus a more specialized alternative.

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