get_prewarm_regions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states that the tool retrieves prewarm regions, but does not indicate side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only.

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 a single, short sentence with no redundancy. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness; a score of 4 reflects efficiency without verbosity.

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 the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description should still explain what prewarm regions are, how they relate to the URL, and what the response contains. It fails to provide this context, leaving the agent without enough information to use the tool effectively.

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 parameter 'url' has 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 '获取 URL 可用的预热区域' translates to 'Get the prewarm regions available for a URL', which simply restates the tool's name in Chinese. It does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_prewarm_pop_points', so the purpose is clear but not distinct.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_prewarm_pop_points, prefetch_content, or query_prefetch_status. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use.

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