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

注释已经声明了readOnlyHint=true和idempotentHint=true，而描述中的'Read-only'只是重复了这一信息，没有增加新的行为细节，如权限要求、速率限制或数据范围。因此描述在行为透明度上几乎没有超出注释的贡献。

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?

描述仅用三句话承载了核心信息，没有冗余，关键信息（禁止轨道、允许目录）置于开头，最后以'Read-only'收尾。结构高效且易读。

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?

对于无参数、无输出模式的简单只读工具，描述覆盖了主要内容：禁止的轨道、层级规则和允许目录。但未说明策略的格式或如何使用返回结果，在完整性上有轻微不足。

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?

工具没有参数，输入模式为空，schema覆盖率为100%，因此描述无需添加参数语义。根据0参数基线，此项评分为4。

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?

描述以'Forbidden rails and tier rules'和'Allowed catalog'明确说明了工具返回的主题，并通过'Read-only'暗示了查询操作。虽然缺少显式动词'获取/检索'，但工具名称和只读声明使意图清晰，足以与列出策略明细的兄弟工具区分。

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?

描述未提及何时使用此工具，也未与其他类似工具或替代方案进行对比。没有说明使用场景、前提或排除条件，因此代理缺乏选择此工具而非其他工具的依据。

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