generate_character_sheet

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavior: the output acts as a shot-consistency anchor, it is more complete than the portrait, the character must already have a 定妆图, and usage is billed after the fact. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., whether an existing sheet is overwritten) or error behavior if the prerequisite is not met, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 compact and every clause earns its place: the core function is front-loaded, the distinction from the batch sibling is immediate, the prerequisite is stated, and the billing note is included. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers purpose, alternatives, precondition, and cost, which is good for a simple tool. However, it leaves episode_id's role undocumented, does not describe what happens if the prerequisite is unmet, and offers no information about how the output is returned or retrieved. Given 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, these omissions make it only partially complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two undocumented parameters. It does not explain what character_id or episode_id mean or how they interact. character_id is somewhat inferable, but episode_id's purpose is entirely unclear, leaving a meaningful gap in the agent's ability to call the tool correctly.

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 and resource: '给单个角色出三视图设定图' (produce a three-view design image for a single character). It also differentiates itself from the sibling generate_character_sheets by explicitly stating the batch alternative and from the 定妆图 by noting it is more complete, so an agent can clearly identify when this tool applies.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: use for a single character, and use generate_character_sheets for an entire episode's batch. It also names a clear prerequisite ('该角色已有定妆图') that must be met before calling, effectively ruling out invalid invocations.

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