portal_ask

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says answers are authoritative but does not say whether responses are generated (potentially non-deterministic), whether sources or links are returned, whether there is latency or a rate limit, or what happens when the assistant has no answer.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the target system and then the answer domains; nothing is padded. It could be slightly more useful if the second half were spent on behavioral facts instead of enumerating example categories.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers what the tool is and roughly what it answers. It omits how the answer comes back and whether it is a free-form AI response, which an agent needs to plan a follow-up call.

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?

There is a single required parameter, question, whose schema description coverage is already 100% ('提问问题。'). The description adds nothing about phrasing, language, or granularity of a good question, so it can only reach the baseline for a fully documented 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 states a specific verb and resource: ask the university's official AI assistant (西湖AI问答) a question. It also narrows the scope to campus regulations, service procedures and life guides, which distinguishes it from data-lookup siblings like wiki_search or affairs_portal. It stops short of naming a sibling directly.

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 content domains (regulations, procedures, life guides) imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as wiki_search or portal_cards. An agent must infer routing from the domain words alone.

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