snapshot_repo_verify

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. It states '验证' (verify) but doesn't explain what verification involves (e.g., read-only checks, potential side effects, error handling, or output format). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief and structured with a purpose statement followed by a parameter list. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the formatting includes extra whitespace. Every sentence earns its place, but it could be more front-loaded with key details.

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 (verification operation), no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what verification entails, expected outcomes, error conditions, and how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it inadequate for an AI agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 lists 'name: 仓库名称' (name: repository name), which adds minimal semantic context beyond the schema's 'Name' title. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate by explaining format constraints (e.g., string pattern) or examples, so it scores slightly lower.

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 '验证快照仓库' (verify snapshot repository), which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't specify what verification entails (e.g., checking connectivity, validating settings, or testing functionality) or differentiate from sibling tools like 'snapshot_repo_get' or 'snapshot_repo_create'. The purpose is clear but vague in scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after creating a repository), exclusions (e.g., not for checking snapshot status), or related tools like 'snapshot_repo_get' for inspection. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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