inspect_huawei_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Check' and 'report' imply a read-only inspection that returns counts rather than file contents, which is helpful, but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, required configuration, or error/edge-case behavior.

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 one concise front-loaded sentence. It delivers the action, resource, and result with no filler or unclear phrasing.

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 parameters, an output schema, and a clear read-oriented purpose, the description is mostly complete. It could be slightly stronger with explicit guidance on what 'configured' means or what the counts are used for, but an agent can likely call it correctly as-is.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema confirms this, so there is no parameter-semantic burden on the description. A score of 4 aligns with the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 action ('Check') and a clear resource ('configured Huawei export') along with the concrete outcome ('report available source-file counts'). This distinguishes it from the sibling activity/health/report tools.

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?

Usage context is implicitly clear: an agent should call this when it needs to verify the Huawei export and know how many source files are available. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to the sibling tools.

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