Save hours every week. This sph checklist kit toolkit gives you a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook for restaurant/brand growth. No setup, works in any LLM chatbot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional user query to scope the analysis. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at output shape ('a battle-tested prompt and operating playbook') but says nothing about what the checklist contains, how long it is, whether the optional query reshapes the output, or what happens when the query is omitted. The 'restaurant/brand growth' framing also conflicts with the Shipinhao content-kit family, adding confusion rather than clarity.
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?
Only three sentences, but the lead is a benefit slogan ('Save hours every week') instead of the tool's function, and 'sph checklist kit toolkit' is redundant word-stacking. The one sentence with substance is buried in the middle.
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 zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool with one optional parameter, the description should state the checklist's domain and output format. Instead it gives generic sales copy and a mismatched 'restaurant/brand growth' domain, leaving an agent unable to predict what it will receive.
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 optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines 'query' as an optional scoping input. The description adds no information about how a query influences the generated checklist. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.
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 restates the name ('sph checklist kit toolkit') and layers marketing claims ('battle-tested prompt and operating playbook') rather than saying what the tool actually produces for a Shipinhao content checklist. 'sph' is never expanded, and nothing distinguishes this from the dozens of sibling sph-*-kit tools (sph-sop-kit, sph-template-kit, etc., or the gzh-/xhs-/zh-checklist-kit equivalents).
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 setup, works in any LLM chatbot' describes portability, not when to choose this checklist kit over the sibling sph-adcopy-kit or sph-sop-kit. There is no stated trigger condition, no input requirement guidance, and no exclusion of when this tool is the wrong pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.