bgi_repo_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only directory listing and signals the output is a tree (目录树), but it says nothing about whether the browse is safe, whether it hits network/rate limits, or how 'limit' truncates the tree.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the purpose comes first and the discovery hint follows immediately. It is arguably too terse given the tool has three parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a low-complexity, zero-required-parameter browse tool with a fully documented schema, the definition is adequate but thin: it never explains the shape of the returned tree or how kind partitions interact with the default pathing partition, and no output schema exists to cover that gap.

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 100%, so kind, limit, and filter are already fully documented with defaults, and one parameter is an enum. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the lifting.

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?

Names a specific action and resource — browsing the official script repository tree — and scopes it to discovering routes, JS scripts, and combat strategies. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like bgi_list_pathing, bgi_list_js_scripts, or bgi_list_strategies, leaving the agent unsure which to pick when it wants a specific category.

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 parenthetical '用于发现可用的...' implies a discovery use case, which is helpful context, but there is no statement of when NOT to use it and no named alternative such as bgi_find_routes for targeted search. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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