cn402_hanzi_bihua

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the core function but omits key behavioral details such as how stroke counts are returned (per character or total), whether input may contain non-Chinese characters, or how pricing affects usage. The mention of 'Price: unknown' adds a transactional note but does not clarify tool behavior.

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 cluttered with multiple redundant synonyms and extraneous text like 'Price: unknown on Base (auto-paid in USDC)'. The core action is not front-loaded; it is buried after the synonym list. This reduces conciseness and clarity.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description states the purpose and sample use cases but does not explain the output format (e.g., whether it returns a list of stroke counts or a total). Given the simplicity, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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 has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'text', describing it as 'Chinese text (required, max 100 chars)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the tool as a Chinese stroke counter with multiple synonyms and explicitly states 'Get stroke count for each Chinese character.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cn402_hanzi_bushou (radicals) by focusing on stroke count.

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 lists use cases ('handwriting apps, Hanzi learning, character grading') implying when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to alternative tools. No guidance is given for differentiating from other Hanzi tools.

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