workspace_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it clarifies runtime_version semantics (load-time package version, not proof of functionality/completeness) and states that no secrets are displayed and no external APIs are called. These are useful behavioral limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary checking scope. The semicolon-separated clauses about runtime_version and the no-secrets/no-API constraints are relevant, though the first clause is broad enough that the overall text remains slightly dense rather than optimally crisp.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the rich annotations already cover safety behavior. The description adds privacy and external-API limitations plus runtime_version semantics, making it complete enough for a parameterless workspace-check tool, though 'implementation boundaries' remains abstract.

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 has zero input parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline score is 4. The description mentions runtime_version, but that is an output concept rather than an input parameter, so it does not alter the parameter semantics score.

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 (检查/check) and the resources it inspects: configuration, import directories, and implementation boundaries. It is unique among the sibling tools, which are document and practice/review operations, so no sibling differentiation is needed. However, it does not explicitly say it returns workspace status information, leaving the exact output purpose slightly implicit.

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 describes what the tool checks, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives to consider. An agent must infer that this is a diagnostic/status tool from the name and vague opening clause. No usage conditions are stated.

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