apifox_check_project_access

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '检查' (check) implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this is a safe read operation, what permissions are required, what format the results will be in, or whether there are any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 extremely concise - a single Chinese phrase that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information about what the tool does.

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 the tool's relative simplicity (single parameter, 100% schema coverage) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does at a high level, but doesn't provide enough context about when to use it versus alternatives, what the behavior entails, or what results to expect. For a permission-checking tool with no output schema, more guidance would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'projectId' clearly documented in the schema as '项目ID' (project ID). The description doesn't add any additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '检查指定项目的访问权限' clearly states the tool's purpose as checking access permissions for a specified project, providing a specific verb ('检查' - check) and resource ('指定项目的访问权限' - specified project's access permissions). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'apifox_check_access', which appears to be a more general access check tool.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when this specific project access check should be used instead of the more general 'apifox_check_access' tool or other sibling tools. The description simply states what the tool does without providing usage context.

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