查询软件包编译/解析状态

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already communicate safety and openness. The description adds value by explaining successStatus values (0/1/2), which is useful output context not present in the schema. It does not describe error handling, missing packages, or rate limits, but with annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and includes the key status mapping. It is efficient, though slightly too terse and omits the compile aspect from the title.

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 status-query tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify the return semantics and suggest when to call it. It does explain successStatus but misses usage timing, the compile-vs-parse ambiguity, and any note about batch behavior. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context feels incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67%, and the description adds no parameter-level explanations. The schema documents pkgIds and platform, but appId remains undescribed in both schema and description. The description's mention of successStatus does not aid parameter understanding, so it fails to compensate for the appId gap.

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 the action ('查询') and resource ('软件包解析状态'), and the title clarifies it relates to compile/parse status. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like agc_get_app_info by the specific status focus. However, the description only says '解析' (parse) while the title says '编译/解析' (compile/parse), a minor inconsistency.

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 does not mention typical triggers (e.g., after package upload), prerequisites, or why to use this instead of agc_get_app_info. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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