sbwsz

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the core function (stitching text into images using card images) but lacks critical details: what '魔法卡牌' (magic cards) refers to, whether this requires authentication, rate limits, file format of output, error conditions, or what happens with the boolean parameters. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 concise (one sentence in Chinese) and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parenthetical '活字乱刷（使用卡牌图像拼接句子）' adds some redundancy with the main clause. Overall, it's efficient but could be slightly more streamlined by integrating the parenthetical explanation.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the basic transformation (text → card-image picture) but misses: parameter meanings for 2/3 parameters, output format, error handling, and how it relates to sibling tools. For a tool that presumably generates visual output, more context about the result is needed.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only mentions '输入的文本' (input text), which corresponds to 'target_sentence'. The two boolean parameters ('cut_full_image' and 'with_link') are completely unexplained in the description. With 3 parameters total and only 1 addressed, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: '将输入的文本使用魔法卡牌图像拼接成图片' (use magic card images to stitch input text into a picture). It specifies the verb ('拼接' - stitch/assemble), resource ('卡牌图像' - card images), and output format ('图片' - picture). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_card_by_set_and_number' or 'search_cards', which appear to be query tools rather than image generation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_sets' or 'search_cards'. The only implied usage is when text needs to be converted to card-based images, but no explicit when/when-not instructions are provided.

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