采集已批准来源

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description clarifies that commit=false means a preview that does not write to the job repository. This adds behavioral transparency beyond annotations by explaining the default behavior and the write path. No contradiction.

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 one concise sentence that packs key information: scope, operations, default commit behavior, and effect. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 2 parameters, no required fields, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It explains the default non-write behavior but omits details like how source_id filters or what the output represents. With no annotations on safety, some additional context on idempotency (idempotentHint=false) would help, but the output schema covers return values.

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 schema has 2 parameters (commit, source_id) with zero description coverage. The description mentions commit default but does not explain source_id semantics (e.g., optional filtering). It partially compensates but not fully, so 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?

The description states a specific action (collect) with a scope (from approved sources) and lists key behaviors (standardize, dedupe, update timeliness). It distinguishes from siblings like run_pipeline and run_due by highlighting the approved-source restriction. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, which keeps it from 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?

The description implies usage for approved-source collection but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other tools like run_due or run_pipeline. It mentions commit defaults but no exclusion criteria. The implication is clear but not explicit, so it scores below a 4.

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