poster_workspace_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure responsibility. It explicitly states side effects: creates folders and moves files, and notes the 'by default' behavior for the move operation. It does not mention error conditions, permissions, or whether moves are reversible, but covers the essential mutating actions clearly.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and efficiently packs all key behaviors: side effects, default action, and return value. There is no redundant wording, and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value ('pending poster image paths'). It also covers side effects. However, it does not enumerate the 'standard folders' beyond 00_待處理, which could be useful for understanding the workspace structure. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both root and move_loose_images_to_pending. The description reiterates the default behavior of moving images but adds no new semantic information beyond the schema. Thus 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 clearly specifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Prepare and inspect') and resource ('local poster workflow folder'). It details three concrete actions: creating standard folders if missing, moving loose image files, and returning pending poster paths. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on calendar/event management or marking processed posters.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: it prepares the workspace and returns items that 'should be read next,' indicating a precursor step. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Sibling tools like mark_poster_processed are clearly different but not referenced, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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