Check Canon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden and supplies none of it: it does not say what canon is, what is compared against what, whether it is read-only or mutating, whether it fails or reports violations, or what the result looks like. This is a bare restatement of the name.

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 one short phrase with zero padding and is front-loaded, but the brevity is the result of under-specification rather than disciplined editing. Concise, yet almost no information is conveyed.

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 annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and a domain ('canon consistency') that requires explanation, the definition is far too thin for an agent to invoke it confidently. Nothing tells the agent what a successful or failing check means.

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 0% and the single parameter project_id has no description anywhere. The description never mentions project_id, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap, though the parameter name is at least self-explanatory.

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 gives a verb ('检查'/check) and a resource ('canon consistency'), so the general intent is legible, but 'canon' is domain jargon left unexplained and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as check_ludo_narrative, check_knowledge, check_timeline or validate_project. It states a purpose without clarifying scope.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run this check, what triggers it, whether it must run before/after other operations, or which sibling validation tool to prefer. The agent is left to guess from the name alone.

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