get_script_format_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free/static/no-charge, explains the v1 vs v2 content difference, warns that filled_example must be forwarded for LLM compliance, and reveals the B-path behavior where client annotations get stripped by G1. This is unusually candid about behavioral traits and downstream consequences.

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 long, but it is well-structured with ★ delimited sections and front-loads the core deliverable list. Every section earns its place by carrying actionable workflow or failure-prevention information. A little trimming of the v1/v2 background would improve conciseness, but the density is justified for a tool embedded in a multi-step pipeline.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by covering return contents, when to use it, how to use it in three steps, which downstream tools to call for each exit path, and even the fidelity/format rules shipped inside the spec. An agent has all necessary information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%: both drama_title and episode_number already state they only affect the template header and not the contract itself. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but none are needed, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: '取本平台认可的剧本格式契约' (get the platform's recognized script format contract), and immediately enumerates the four deliverables (markdown, external_prompt, skeleton, filled_example). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_script (retrieve an actual script) and check_script_format (validate format), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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 includes an explicit '什么时候用' (when to use) section listing three triggering scenarios, plus a three-step usage workflow referencing exact sibling tools (check_script_format, adopt_external_script, set_script, rewrite_script). It also contrasts the two exit paths A and B, telling the agent how to route based on client preference, which is far above the typical 'use this for X' guidance.

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