chain_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers a solid contract: the output is a per-item list with reason and suggestedAction, sorted by a defined severity hierarchy, and the verb 计算 strongly implies a non-mutating report. It does not explicitly state read-only or no-side-effect guarantees, but for a status tool the behavioral profile is largely disclosed.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, then enumerates the severity taxonomy and output fields with no filler. The nested parenthetical severity definitions are packed to the point of being slightly hard to skim, which prevents a perfect 5.

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 simple 2-parameter diagnostic tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the essentials: what is computed, the sort order, the meaning of each severity tier, and the shape of each result item. With no output schema and no annotations, it would be stronger still if it defined what the '链' is and explicitly confirmed no side effects, but nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: projectId is documented as the project id/folder name, and dir is documented with its default resolution (PROTOFLOW_HOME or startup cwd). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a highly specific verb+resource — 计算整条链的过期清单 — and then enumerates five severity tiers with definitions (broken > unvalidated > review > drifted > lagging) plus the output contract (每项含 reason 与 suggestedAction). This specificity makes it unmistakable against 20 siblings, none of which perform chain-health diagnosis.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative-routing guidance is provided. The severity ordering implies a diagnostic / pre-flight role before building or publishing, but an agent must infer that context rather than being told which sibling to prefer in which situation.

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