preview_matching

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 effectively describes key traits: it's a preview/exercise mode ('演习模式') and non-destructive ('不会实际修改文件'), which clarifies safety and operational context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like performance impact or output format, leaving some gaps.

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 and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence in Chinese that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key behavioral trait. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, 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 tool's moderate complexity (previewing subtitle matching), no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and safety aspect but lacks details on what the preview output entails (e.g., format, success criteria) or prerequisites. For a tool with no structured output, more context would be helpful.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'directory' documented as '要分析的目录路径' (directory path to analyze). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond this, such as expected directory structure or file types. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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: '预览字幕匹配结果' (preview subtitle matching results). It specifies the action (preview) and the resource (subtitle matching results), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'rename_subtitles' or 'scan_media_files' beyond the 'preview' aspect. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation for a full 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 implies usage context with '演习模式，不会实际修改文件' (exercise mode, will not actually modify files), suggesting it's for testing or simulation purposes. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'rename_subtitles' (which likely modifies files) or 'scan_media_files' (which might scan without previewing). The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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