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

The annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantive context: what is verified, that it can block ('阻断原因'), and that it returns a can_export gate plus missing-item and issue lists with fixes. It does not state whether results are persisted or whether GCP status is fetched live, but for a read-only audit tool it discloses enough beyond the annotations.

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 content is dense and front-loaded with trigger phrases, but the whole definition is one unpunctuated run-on that merges triggers, the check list, and the return fields ('can_export、SPIRIT 覆盖度…、G3 一致性问题清单与改法、阻断原因') with no separators or labels. Splitting into when-to-use / what-it-checks / what-it-returns would materially improve scanability without adding words.

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, read-only gate tool with no output schema, the description covers both the inputs it examines and the shape of the result (export gate boolean, coverage gaps, consistency issue list with remediation, blocking reasons). The only real gap is the handoff to act_design_export after a passing check.

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, project_id, and the schema already documents it fully ('课题 id'), so schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint details about it. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter meaning entirely.

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 names a specific verb (pre-export check) and resource (protocol/方案), and enumerates the three checks it runs: SPIRIT 2025 coverage, GCP approval status, and G3 document consistency. It is distinguishable from act_design_export and act_deep_review by scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly and the sentence is a run-on that blends the trigger phrases, capability list, and output list.

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?

It gives concrete trigger utterances (「能不能导出了」「帮我检查方案有没有漏洞」) and a hard rule ('must run this step before exporting'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicit routing such as 'run this, then call act_design_export if can_export is true', so the alternative sibling is implied rather than named.

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