get_last_modified_prims

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: it returns 'unsupported' when the information is unprovable, explicitly states it does not fabricate data ('不伪造'), and mentions NO_UNDO and server-side apply_response_cap. This adds meaningful context beyond the name, though it does not describe success return format or potential side effects.

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 description is short (roughly three sentences), so it is concise, but the structure is not front-loaded: it begins with the unsupported condition rather than the tool's primary purpose. It also uses unexplained jargon like 'apply_response_cap' without definition, which hurts clarity. It is efficient but could be better organized.

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?

Given the tool has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It provides some limitation context (unsupported condition, no fabrication) but omits parameter meanings, success return value, typical use cases, and any relationship to sibling tools. The description is not sufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool.

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 has two required parameters, ctx and node_path, with no descriptions in the schema, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not mention either parameter at all, leaving their semantics completely unexplained. This is a severe gap for an agent attempting to invoke the tool correctly.

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 name 'get_last_modified_prims' strongly suggests the tool retrieves prims by last modification, and the description mentions 'last-modified ordering' and 'recent modification info.' However, the description focuses on the unsupported case rather than clearly stating the core function (e.g., 'Returns prims sorted by last modification time'). The purpose is implied rather than explicitly defined, and no sibling differentiation is needed as no similar tool exists.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or alternatives. It only mentions that it returns 'unsupported' when last-modified info cannot be proven, which is a limitation but not a clear usage instruction. There is no 'use this when...' statement, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools.

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