Tuanjie Console Reader

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'clear' action aligns with them. The description adds the note that action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged, which is useful, but it does not clarify side effects of clearing or what a 'get' returns. No contradiction exists.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes something: the first states the core behavior, and the second discloses pass-through behavior for extra parameters. It is efficient, though it sacrifices detail that would improve overall usefulness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and the description does not describe the return format for 'get', the full consequences of 'clear', or what action-specific parameters are valid. For a tool that accepts open-ended additional properties, the lack of this context makes successful invocation uncertain.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only repeats the action enum from the schema and states that additional parameters are passed through unchanged, without naming or explaining any of those parameters. This leaves the parameter contract largely opaque.

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 resource (Tuanjie Editor console) and the supported actions (get, clear), using specific verbs. It is a clear, functional statement, although it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools beyond the resource name.

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 to read or clear Tuanjie Editor console entries. It does not discuss when not to use it, nor does it compare against sibling tools such as unity_dialog or execute_custom_tool.

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