prompt_reproduce

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the key behavioral fact that the effect is a user-visible prompt on the device's floating window rather than a silent operation. Beyond that it is silent on whether the call blocks or waits for the user, what happens if the device is offline, and what the call returns.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the manual-trigger condition attached. Nothing is redundant, though the brief length is also the source of its behavioral gaps.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the visible effect but not the outcome: there is no statement of what the call returns, whether it confirms the prompt was displayed, or whether it awaits user action. An agent could call it but cannot predict the response.

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% across 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains text (custom guidance message) but says nothing about deviceId, the required parameter, leaving its target semantics undocumented in both places.

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 a specific action (showing a floating-window prompt on the device) whose purpose is to have the user start reproducing the issue, so the verb and resource are both concrete. The parenthetical 'manual trigger outside stability determination' implicitly contrasts it with the sibling watch_stability, but it never names that sibling, so differentiation depends on inference.

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?

'稳定判定之外的手动触发' does convey the situation: use this when you want a manual, user-driven trigger rather than the automatic stability flow. But no explicit alternative routing, prerequisites (is the app or bridge session required?), or when not to use is given; the guidance remains implied.

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