bootstrap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the rejection of 19 default-skills and targets missing files, but doesn't state whether it overwrites existing files, authentication requirements, or what happens on success or failure. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the action, scope, and a key exception.

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 simple tool (three well-documented params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and usage boundaries well. The main gap is lack of detail about return values or side effects, but the scope is narrow enough that the description is still sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (skill, workspace, sourceWorkspace). The description only restates these as '指定 skill 名、目标工作区和来源工作区', adding no extra semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 action: '为跨工作区但缺少 .source.json 的 skill 补溯源文件' (supplement traceability files for cross-workspace skills missing .source.json). It specifies the exact resource (.source.json) and condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sync or check.

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 provides explicit usage context: cross-workspace skills missing .source.json, and an explicit exclusion: automatically rejects default-skills managed by workspace-watcher. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools to use instead, so it misses full 'when not to use' guidance.

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