inventory_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the nature of the output (counts, main projects, 7-day workload) and implies a read-only overview. Still, it does not state whether it is non-mutating, whether data is cached or live, or any caveats about the overview's completeness.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately lists the key contents. It then adds a practical usage hint. Every phrase contributes value with no redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what will be returned and when to call it. The ambiguity of '各栏数量' and '主要项目清单' slightly reduces completeness, but overall the agent can safely decide to invoke it as an overview.

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, so parameter descriptions are unnecessary. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning.

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 produces a local AI Agent asset overview with item counts, a main project list, and per-agent workload over the past 7 days. It is distinct enough from sibling tools by positioning itself as the initial entry point, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'show' and does not sharply contrast with inventory_index.

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 gives clear guidance: '想了解这台机器上装了什么、在做什么，先用它' tells the agent to use this first when checking what is installed or active. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternative siblings.

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