pi-web 连接自检

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious value by enumerating the diagnostic fields returned (address, password source, session counts, read/write boundary and writable project roots). It does not describe output shape in detail, but with readOnly annotations and no output schema this is a solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then a colon-delimited field list, then a short usage cue. Dense but every clause adds information; the field enumeration is slightly listy but earns its place by standing in for a missing output 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must supply the return-value picture, and it does so by naming the diagnostics reported. An agent knows what a successful check yields and what it means for the read-only/writable-root boundary.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 ("检查 MCP 到 pi-web 的连接配置") and enumerates exactly what is inspected: address, password source, session totals, running sessions, and read/write boundaries. No sibling tool performs a connection/config health check, so it is clearly distinguishable from the session/file/git tools.

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?

Explicit trigger given: "连不上时先用这个排查" – use it first when the connection fails. Clear usage context, though it does not name which sibling to fall back to after the check passes or what a failed check implies for subsequent calls.

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