读取 Skill 与规则

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: it is a mandatory prerequisite call and it enumerates the three payloads returned. It omits output format and pagination details, but for a 0-param read-only getter this is solid disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first enumerates the return contents, the second states the mandatory call precondition. Front-loaded with zero filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must summarize return values, and it does list all three returned artifacts plus the calling precondition. Adequately complete, though it could say more about how the rules should be applied.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no argument is needed.

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 states a specific verb and three concrete resources returned (强制工作流, SKILL.md 全文, visual 规则摘要), which is far more specific than the name 'get_brief' alone. It is clearly distinguishable from all prototype-manipulation siblings.

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 an explicit precondition: '生成或修改原型前必须先调用' (must be called before generating or modifying a prototype), which routes the agent relative to create_prototype/update_prototype. It does not name those siblings explicitly or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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