get_storyboard_table_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is free, static, and non-charging, lists the returned content, and documents important behavioral contract rules such as non-whitelist terms being left blank, requiring at least one description line to generate images, and non-scene headings ending a shot. It doesn't cover auth/error behavior, but that is low-risk for a static read-oriented spec endpoint.

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 well-structured with ★ markers, front-loading the returned artifact list, then the usage context, then the formatting contract. Each block earns its place, though there is slight redundancy in the repeated external-AI forwarding guidance, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming every returned component and giving the key syntax and whitelist rules an agent needs. It also covers when to call it, the static/free behavior, and the instruction to include filled_example when forwarding to external AI. For a zero-required-parameter spec tool, this is 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the two optional parameters (drama_title and episode_number), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already explains both only affect the template header, so no information is missing.

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 ('取') and a specific resource: this platform's recognized storyboard-table format contract, and enumerates its components (markdown template, external_prompt, skeleton, filled_example, checklist, whitelists). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly saying it should be called before import_storyboard_table.

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 has an explicit '★什么时候用' section: call it when a client has a finished storyboard table, when external AI/tools need to normalize shot design into the platform format, and before running import_storyboard_table. It gives clear context but does not state when not to use it or name alternative spec tools such as get_script_format_spec.

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