get_file_naming_rules

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('获取文件命名规则') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the structure of naming rules), any error conditions, or behavioral constraints. For a tool with two parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to fully understand its usage.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('requirement_name' and 'file_type') with descriptions and an enum for 'file_type'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取文件命名规则' (get file naming rules) and specifies it follows FOP specifications. It includes both verb ('获取') and resource ('文件命名规则'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_smart_retrieval_config' or 'get_workflow_config', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other sibling tools (e.g., 'get_workflow_config') might be more appropriate. Usage is implied through the purpose but lacks explicit context.

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