Check Ludo Narrative

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the conflict categories inspected but says nothing about whether it is read-only, what a conflict result contains, severity levels, or whether project_id is required. A diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage needs more than a category list.

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?

One compact sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the parenthetical detail is the only content and nothing else earns space.

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 diagnostic check tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum convey what a result looks like and what input is needed. As written, an agent cannot predict the response shape or confirm whether project_id is required.

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 project_id has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so there is no guidance on its format, source, or whether omission defaults to the active project. Baseline is not met because the one existing parameter is undocumented in both places.

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 (检查) and resource (玩法-叙事冲突), then narrows the scope to NPC状态、flag、gameplay模式. An agent knows this is a targeted conflict-detection check, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling checks like check_canon or check_thread_health.

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?

No indication of when to run this check versus the many other check_* siblings, no prerequisites, and no ordering guidance relative to validate_project or register_* tools. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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