slm_policy_explain

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 mentions that the tool '返回策略的详细解释，包括下次创建/删除快照的时间' (returns detailed policy explanation including next snapshot creation/deletion times), which adds some behavioral context about the return format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, which is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. It starts with the core purpose, lists parameters with explanations, and ends with return details. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The structure is clear, though minor formatting could be improved for better readability.

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 complexity (a policy explanation tool with 1 parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return details, but lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral transparency. For a tool with no structured output, it should ideally provide more on the return format, but it meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only shows a 'name' parameter of type string. The description specifies that 'name' is '策略名称（支持通配符如 daily*）' (policy name, supports wildcards like daily*), clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't cover all potential edge cases.

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 purpose: '解释快照生命周期策略' (explain snapshot lifecycle policy). It specifies the verb ('解释' - explain) and resource ('快照生命周期策略' - snapshot lifecycle policy). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'slm_policy_get' or 'explain', which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'slm_policy_get' or 'explain', nor does it specify any prerequisites or contexts for usage. The only implied usage is to get policy details, but this is too vague for effective tool selection.

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