check_file_exists

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 only states the basic action ('检查文件是否存在') without detailing what 'exists' means (e.g., file permissions, symbolic links), error handling, or any side effects. This 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 extremely concise and front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first phrase and includes parameter info in a compact format. Every sentence (or phrase) earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., boolean, error messages) or behavioral aspects like what constitutes 'existence'. For a basic check tool, more context on output and edge cases would improve completeness.

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 minimal semantics: it names the parameter ('filepath') and provides a brief explanation ('文件路径' - file path). With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this compensates slightly but doesn't elaborate on format, constraints, or examples. Baseline is 3 due to the single parameter, but the added value is limited.

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: '检查文件是否存在' (check if a file exists). It specifies the verb ('检查' - check) and resource ('文件' - file), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings, as no other file-related tools are listed among the sibling tools, so differentiation isn't needed but also not addressed.

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 lacks context about prerequisites, such as file system access or permissions, and doesn't mention any related tools or scenarios where this check is necessary, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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