Check Knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing: no statement of what is validated, what a failure looks like, whether it mutates state, or what permissions or prerequisites apply.

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?

It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness, and the mixed-language phrasing leaves the meaning ambiguous rather than front-loading a clear purpose.

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 two-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly; it is effectively unusable as a selection signal.

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% for both event_id and project_id. The description's only clue is the word 'event' (事件), and it says nothing about project_id or the relationship between the two parameters.

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 is a garbled phrase mixing Chinese and English ('检查事件 assumes 是否被 reveals 覆盖') that gestures at event/reveal coverage checking but never states a clear verb+resource. An agent cannot reliably determine what this tool does or how it differs from siblings like check_canon, check_thread_health, or get_player_knowledge_state.

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 indication of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With roughly 60 sibling tools including several other 'check_*' validators, the absence of routing guidance is a serious gap.

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