effect_check

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the side effect of closing previous detection windows (with closed_previous count), that the window is closed only on a successful detail read (window_closed=true), that the window is left open on details_error or timeout, that timed-out checks keep running, and it enumerates the four possible verdicts.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every subsequent clause earns its place by describing a distinct return state (verdict, checks, figures, advice, details_error, timeout, closed_previous). It is a single dense run-on sentence joined by semicolons, which makes the branching logic harder to scan than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (verdict, checks with figures for size and android/ios frame rate, advice or advice_unavailable, window_closed, closed_previous, details_error, timeout) and the window lifecycle in every branch. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for timeout_ms beyond the schema's value bound: what happens on expiry (returns timeout, window stays open, detection continues). instance_id / project_path are left entirely to the schema, which already documents their mutual exclusivity and the single-window default.

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 names a specific verb+resource (特效检测 / effect check) and immediately disambiguates scope: it uploads the effect package for cloud checking, explicitly 'not publishing' (不是发布). An agent can distinguish this from my_effect_reviews or submit_prepare without opening the schema.

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 anchors usage to a concrete UI action ('same as clicking 特效检测 in the editor toolbar'), which tells the agent when this is the right call, and rules out publishing as an alternative intent. It does not name a sibling tool to use instead in any scenario, so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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