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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It presents itself as a passive "查看" (view) operation, yet the schema's mark_read flag defaults to true, meaning a plain call mutates read state; that side effect is never disclosed in the description. It also says nothing about permissions, result shape, or how stale the aggregated statuses may be.

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?

Two short sentences with the content of the overview front-loaded and the call-to-action last. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 2-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is nearly sufficient: it tells the agent what data comes back and when to invoke it. The remaining gap is the undisclosed mark_read side effect, which matters for an agent that may call this repeatedly.

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%, so both project and mark_read are already documented with examples and defaults, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting that unread messages are part of the payload.

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?

Names a specific verb (查看/overview) and enumerates exactly what the overview contains: party statuses, file-claim state, and the caller's unread messages. This aggregation of multiple sibling concerns (read_messages, claim_files, update_status) makes it distinguishable, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

"开始任务前先调用这个" gives an explicit trigger condition for using the tool. However, it offers no when-not guidance and does not point to siblings such as read_messages for a narrower read, leaving some routing to inference.

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

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 usefully discloses the all-or-nothing conflict semantic ('有冲突时一个都不认领'), which is not visible in the schema, but omits auth requirements, success/return behavior, and TTL override effects on the release path.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the primary purpose comes first and the conflict rule second. Efficient and readable, though extremely terse.

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?

A mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers purpose and conflict behavior but leaves return/success semantics and permission context to inference, which is a gap when structured fields do not compensate.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., why a note or TTL matters, absolute vs relative path nuances), so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (claim files) plus the purpose (prevent simultaneous edits before modifying). Clear but does not explicitly name or differentiate from the sibling release_files at the name level.

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?

Gives a clear condition for use: '修改文件前先认领' (claim before modifying files). However, it lists no exclusions and does not route to the alternative sibling release_files, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing but never states that it is safe/non-destructive, whether results are paginated, or in what order projects are returned.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. Nothing extraneous is included.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is nearly sufficient for correct invocation. It could add a brief note on read-only nature or result ordering, but it is not strictly required.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4.

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?

States a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('项目') with a clear scope qualifier ('所有用过 Bridge 的'). It does not name or differentiate from any sibling tool, but the purpose is immediately clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the description of what it lists.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real side effect: reading marks messages as read (读后标为已读). It also explains what include_read changes about the result set. It omits return format and whether the read-state change is reversible, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, the core behavior (unread retrieval plus auto-mark-read) front-loaded before the optional flag. No filler.

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 read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the key operational fact (messages are marked read) and the include_read behavior are covered. Return shape and ordering/pagination are not described, which is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented; the description only restates include_read with marginally more meaning ('显示最近的全部消息') and says nothing about limit or project. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('读取给你的未读消息') and scopes it to messages addressed to the caller. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like send_message or bridge_overview, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implicitly tells the agent this is the way to retrieve incoming messages and clarifies the include_read toggle, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the sibling tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a mutation (release) and restricts scope to files you claimed, implying ownership enforcement. However, it does not disclose whether release is immediate, reversible, or requires specific permissions.

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?

Two very short sentences are front-loaded with the core action and then the default behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and the optional-argument behavior adequately. It lacks any note on permissions or post-release state, but for this level of complexity it is nearly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description restates the default behavior for files (留空表示全部), which matches the schema's description, adding no meaning beyond what the structured data provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (释放/release) and resource (你认领的文件/files you claimed), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling claim_files tool. The scope of the effect is immediately clear.

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?

Provides a clear conditional behavior: if files is omitted, all your claims in the project are released. This tells the agent when to pass files versus when to omit it, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any prerequisites.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say whether the message is delivered synchronously or queued, whether it persists, what happens if the recipient is offline, or whether it requires authorization. Only the schema reveals that 'to' defaults to all. This is a significant gap for a cross-agent messaging tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumerated intents earn their place. It is efficient, though brief enough that it leaves obvious context gaps unaddressed.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, an agent cannot tell delivery semantics, failure modes, or how this differs from update_status/read_messages. For a messaging primitive in a multi-agent bridge, the definition is under-specified relative to its complexity.

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% and the schema already documents all three parameters, including the recipient enum values and the 'all' default; the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (leave a message for the other party) and enumerates the four intents (ask, hand off, notify, reply), so the purpose is clear. It does not name or contrast with the obvious sibling read_messages, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 intent list (question, handoff, notification, reply) implies when this tool is appropriate, which is more than nothing. However there is no explicit when-not-to-use, no mention of read_messages as the read-side counterpart, and no stated prerequisites, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the audience (the peer sees the status) and update cadence, but says nothing about persistence, whether prior status is overwritten, or the response shape for a state-mutating call.

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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by a crisp usage rule. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of the name.

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 low-stakes status-update tool whose full schema is self-documenting and which has no output schema to explain, the description covers purpose and cadence adequately. It only lacks the peer-visibility/overwrite details an agent might want for a mutation call.

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%, so all five parameters (task, project, blockers, progress, next_step) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: updating one's own work status so the peer knows what you're doing. Clear purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling send_message, which covers similar 'tell the peer something' territory.

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?

Gives concrete cadence guidance ('每完成一步都应更新' – update after each completed step), which tells the agent when to call it. No exclusions or named alternatives (e.g. versus send_message) are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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