extract_setting_brief

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one important side effect: the result is saved back to the project (并存回项目). However, it does not say whether an existing setting_brief is overwritten, what gets returned, or how the save is keyed, and the billing-like clause adds confusion rather than a clear behavioral guarantee.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, clearly stating the action first. The standalone clause 文本步后付不欠费 does not clearly earn its place and reads as confusing noise. The description is compact but would benefit from removing or clarifying that clause.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main action and side effect but omits the semantics of drama_id, the shape of the saved setting_brief, and overwrite/return behavior. Even for a low-complexity tool, these gaps make the description incomplete.

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 50%: raw_text is documented as 世界观原文, while drama_id has only its name and type. The description confirms that raw_text is the source text and implies drama_id selects the target project through 存回项目, but it never explicitly explains drama_id or the output format of the setting_brief. It adds some context but leaves a required parameter mostly implicit.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: extract a concise setting_brief from world-view raw text and store it back into the project. This distinguishes it from sibling extraction tools such as extract_assets and extract_visual_lock. The appended phrase 文本步后付不欠费 is opaque, 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_assets, extract_visual_lock, or generate_world_concept. There are no selection criteria, exclusions, or context cues beyond the main action, so an agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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