find_related_technologies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It discloses the caching context (cache-miss fallback) and the return shape, which is useful, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, latency/cost implications, or result limits beyond max_options.

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?

Front-loads purpose in one line, then uses labeled Args/Returns blocks. Nothing is padded; the example for idea earns its place by clarifying expected input granularity.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the Args/Returns documentation covers parameters and result fields adequately. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the many sibling tools, which is left unaddressed.

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, and it largely does: idea is explained with a concrete example, domain is given an effective value list (vision/audio/llm/iot/web/robot/data) acting as an informal enum, and max_options is defined as candidate count.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'search/organize a list of related technologies' from a new idea. Clearly distinguishable from probe_technology_details (which goes deep on one technology), though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.

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 parenthetical '供缓存未命中时使用' (use when cache misses) gives a triggering condition, which is real usage guidance. However, it does not name alternatives (e.g., when to call probe_technology_details instead) or state exclusions, so it stays implied rather than explicit.

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