anjian_quick_assess

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that only non-destructive tools are used (a meaningful safety trait) and that it produces a Markdown report. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to existing assessments, potential rate limits, or whether results are persisted/overwritten for the target.

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 efficient sentence that packs purpose, scope, safety constraint, and output format. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the action verb.

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 one-parameter automated tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core workflow (run tools, merge evidence, generate report) but omits details like whether the report is stored, how to retrieve it, or what happens on failure. The safety disclosure (non-destructive) partially compensates for missing annotations.

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 schema has one parameter (target) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It states '只需网址' (only needs a URL), which clarifies the expected format/value of target. This is sufficient for a single-parameter tool, though it doesn't specify whether the target must exactly match a registered name or a hostname format.

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 verb+resource: '一键深度评估已登记目标' (one-click deep assessment of registered targets). It explains what it does: runs available non-destructive tools, merges evidence, and generates a Markdown report. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like anjian_run_assessment, anjian_consolidate, or anjian_generate_report, which could each overlap in function.

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 states the tool runs '非破坏性工具' (non-destructive tools) and works on '已登记目标' (registered targets), implying it requires prior registration. It mentions '只需网址' (only needs a URL), which signals minimal input. However, no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool references (like anjian_run_assessment or anjian_consolidate) are given, leaving the agent to infer overlaps.

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