Reads mandatory agent onboarding rules for directory structure, file naming, archiving, and output naming. Call before fast_calc_excel; results remain valid for 72 hours.
读取Agent接入总则（目录结构/文件命名/落盘存档/成品命名强制规范）。调用 fast_calc_excel 前必须先读（记录72小时内有效）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read operation, describes the content to be retrieved, states a mandatory prerequisite for another tool, and gives a time-bound validity note. It does not describe authentication, rate limits, or return format, but for a simple instruction reader this is reasonably transparent.
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 two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and scope, the second adds the critical prerequisite and validity. No wasted words, and the important constraint is placed immediately after the purpose.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains what will be read and when it must be used. It does not specify the return format (e.g., text, JSON), which would help an agent know what to expect, but overall the essential context is present.
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 parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details.
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 (读取/read) and a specific resource (Agent接入总则/Agent access general rules), then enumerates the covered content (directory structure, file naming, archiving, final product naming). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_skill_instructions by specifying the exact scope.
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 an explicit prerequisite: must be read before calling fast_calc_excel. It also adds a validity window (72 hours). However, it does not mention when to use it versus the similar sibling get_skill_instructions, nor any exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.