登记待补信息

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

Annotations provide no safety hints beyond all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive). The description adds the purpose of preventing fabrication, which is a behavioral reason. However, it does not disclose any side effects, such as whether it creates a new record or modifies existing state, or any confirmation or return behavior. Since annotations carry no safety profile, the description could do more.

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 one sentence of moderate length, delivering the core purpose and a motivational note. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and it avoids excessive detail. The 'avoid AI fabrication' part adds value without bloating. It is slightly longer than necessary but still efficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the 'why' but not the 'how' or details about the parameters. It does not explain how the question and needed_for fields interact, nor does it hint at the expected format of the question. Given the complexity is moderate and parameters are simple strings, the description is just adequate, but additional guidance on the content of 'question' or 'needed_for' would improve completeness.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters individually. The terms 'question' and 'needed_for' are reasonably self-explanatory from their names, but there is no added meaning beyond the schema's field names and constraints. Given the low coverage and the lack of description-level details, a score of 3 is appropriate as a baseline, but not higher.

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 the action (登记，register) and the resource (待补信息，pending information), and specifies what qualifies as pending information (missing material, authorization, or issues that affect judgment). It also mentions the purpose (avoid AI fabrication), which adds context. However, it could more explicitly distinguish this from the sibling open_question_update, though the 'add' vs 'update' distinction is implicit.

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: when there is missing information that affects judgment. It contrasts with 'avoid AI fabrication', suggesting usage when an AI might otherwise guess. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or how it differs from updating existing questions, which is a notable gap given the presence of open_question_update.

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