generate_scene_groups

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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: the operation is asynchronous ('后台异步'), which is important for an agent to know it cannot expect an immediate result. However, with no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does not explain how to monitor completion, whether it overwrites existing groups, or what the output looks like. It adds some transparency but leaves notable 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 appropriately short, with two focused pieces of information: what the tool does (including a clarifying parenthetical) and the async nature. Every word earns its place, and the key action is front-loaded. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the required input (episode_id), what the invocation returns or how to poll for async completion, and whether there are dependencies on existing scene data. These gaps prevent an agent from confidently calling the tool and interpreting the result.

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 provides only the parameter name 'episode_id' with no description, and schema_description_coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention episode_id at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. This does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, so the description adds no semantic value beyond the structured schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'generate scene groups' and explains the core behavior ('group consecutive shots'). The parenthetical about being the foundation for continuous long takes/batch image generation provides useful context, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., get_scene_group_plan), so differentiation is conveyed by context rather than direct contrast.

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 when to use this tool: as a prerequisite ('地基' / foundation) for continuous long takes and batch image generation. However, it does not state when not to use it, mention alternatives, or provide explicit preconditions. The usage context is inferable but not clearly spelled out.

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