info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '查看' (view) implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, what permissions are required, or whether the tool modifies anything. It does disclose the output content (workspace existence, hash, file list, parent/child), but omits other behavioral traits such as error conditions or rate limits.

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 primary action and resource, followed by a compact list of the included aspects. Every part is necessary and informative; there is no fluff, repetition, or tangential detail. It is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture of what the tool returns. It names the key output categories. However, it does not describe the return format, how the data is structured, or potential error scenarios, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. Still, it covers the essential purpose well.

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 100% because the single parameter 'skill' is described as 'Skill 名称（目录名）'. The description adds only the word '单个' (single), which is redundant. Since the schema already explains the parameter fully, the description provides minimal additional semantic value beyond what is structured.

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 tool's function: '查看单个 skill 的完整溯源视图' (view the complete traceability view of a single skill). It specifies the resource (a single skill) and the verb (view), and lists the specific aspects covered (workspace existence, hash, file list, parent/child relationships). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sync or check by focusing on detailed traceability information.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need a complete traceability view of a skill. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or context. It falls short of explicitly naming when not to use it or which sibling tool might be better suited for different scenarios.

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