运行黄雀流水线

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating that new sources are not automatically approved and that collection of approved sources is optional. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether commit=true persists changes, whether it modifies the source graph, or potential long-running behavior, which would improve transparency.

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 concise and to the point, using two sentences to convey the pipeline flow and a key policy (no auto-approval). No unnecessary words or redundancy, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema provided, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the difference between preview and commit modes, the meaning of max_probes/max_queries, or the outcome of the pipeline, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand the full scope.

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 does not clarify the meaning of undisclosed parameters such as force, bucket_ids, max_probes, max_queries, or collect_approved. It only hints at 'optional collection of approved sources' which likely maps to collect_approved, but leaves other parameters unexplained, failing to complement the schema where coverage is only 44%.

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?

Description clearly states the tool executes a pipeline with a sequence (discovery → security probing → candidate sources into graph) and notes that new sources are not auto-approved, which distinguishes its purpose from simpler sibling tools like run_due or collect_jobs. However, it could be more explicit about being the main pipeline runner.

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 does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_due or collect_jobs. It lacks conditions for running the pipeline, prerequisites, or typical invocation scenarios, leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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