submit_checklist

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether the checklist is static knowledge or derived from project state, whether any read/permission is involved, or what the response looks like – notable gaps for an agent deciding how to consume the result.

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?

Two compact sentences, both of which earn their place. The core purpose is stated first and the parameter hint follows, with no filler.

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?

The low complexity and the absence of an output schema mean heavy documentation isn't required, but the description never indicates the shape of the result (a flat list of items? grouped by rule category?) or how it composes with lint_project and get_rules.

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 single parameter has an enum with 0% schema description coverage. The description explains only 'first-release' (adds common blockers) and says nothing about 'general', including that omitting the optional parameter falls back to it, so half the enum semantics remain undocumented.

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 and resource in concrete terms: generating a guardrail checklist before WeChat mini-program submission/release. Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from list_rules/lint_project, though it never names those siblings explicitly to draw the boundary.

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 phrase '提审/上线前' gives implied timing (before you submit or go live), which is real usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction relative to lint_project or get_rules, and no guidance on prerequisites such as running lint first.

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