anjian_consolidate

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. The description mentions deduplication ('去重') and cross-validation marking ('标记交叉印证'), which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose whether this is a mutating operation, whether it writes to persistent state, whether it can be re-run safely, or whether source data gets consumed/destroyed during consolidation.

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 efficiently conveys the core action (merge), inputs (multiple result types), and outcome (dedup + cross-validation). 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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% schema description coverage. The description names the inputs but doesn't explain the expected output, whether the agent must run imports first, what 'marking cross-validation' means in practice, or any side effects. For a tool that consolidates multiple data sources, an agent would benefit from clarity on prerequisites and output format.

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 0% for the single parameter (assessment_id). The description doesn't explain what the assessment_id refers to or where it comes from (though this is somewhat inferable from sibling tools like anjian_create_assessment and anjian_list_assessments). Baseline 3 applies given the parameter is simple and self-describing by name, but the description adds no value for the parameter.

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 ('合并' = merge) and resource (running, Burp/HAR, PCAP, source results), and mentions deduplication by asset/problem fingerprint with cross-validation marking. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like anjian_validate_observation or anjian_run_assessment, and the verb '合并' (merge/consolidate) is somewhat generic without clarifying the tool's unique output.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., anjian_run_assessment, anjian_scan_source, anjian_import_web_evidence). It's implied that this tool is a post-processing aggregation step after running assessments and importing evidence, but the description doesn't state prerequisites like 'call after anjian_run_assessment' or ordering requirements.

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