inventory_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is lightweight ('最省 token'), returns a one-page directory, and implies a read-only operation by positioning it as an overview. It doesn't mention potential errors or caching, but for a 0-parameter read tool this is adequate and not misleading.

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 a single, punchy sentence in Chinese, front-loaded with the core value proposition ('最省 token 的第一步'). Every clause earns its place: it states the content, the timing, and the alternative tools. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly: it explains what the result contains (file counts, recent dates, project list) and when to use it. It doesn't specify the exact return format or pagination, but for a simple index tool this is a minor gap.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed; the schema itself is empty. The description focuses on the output semantics, which is appropriate for this tool.

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 that this tool provides a one-page directory listing the file count and most recent date for each record source, along with a list of main projects. It explicitly positions it as the first, token-saving step and differentiates it from deeper tools like inventory_search and inventory_project, so an agent can identify its specific role among 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?

The description gives explicit guidance: it should be consulted first ('先看它'), and the agent should then decide whether to use inventory_search or inventory_project for deeper investigation. It also warns against reading files individually, which serves as a clear alternative behavior to avoid.

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