suggest_modern_cpp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (suggests upgrades) and the return format (a report with new features and rewrite examples), but lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it modifies the input code, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or handles edge cases. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. It uses bullet points for parameter details, which enhances readability. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the return information more seamlessly, and there's minor redundancy in listing all standard options explicitly.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers the purpose, parameters with semantics, and return format. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. The main gap is the lack of behavioral context, but overall, it provides enough information for basic use.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only lists parameter names and types. The description explains that 'code' is the C++ code to analyze and 'target_standard' is the target C++ standard with specific optional values (cpp11 to cpp23) and a default (cpp17). This fully compensates for the low schema coverage, providing clear semantics for both parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '建议将代码升级为现代 C++ 写法' (suggests upgrading code to modern C++ style). This specifies the verb (suggest upgrades) and resource (C++ code). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'analyze_memory_safety' or 'check_const_correctness', which might have overlapping analysis functions but different focuses.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or other contexts where this tool might be preferred or avoided. Usage is implied (when you want to modernize C++ code), but there's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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