Check Timeline

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 discloses what is detected (causal contradictions and cycles) but says nothing about severity of findings, whether the timeline is mutated, required permissions, or what happens when no project_id is given.

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 short phrase, front-loaded and free of waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a validation tool. The brevity serves the reader only because there is so little content to convey.

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, zero parameter documentation, and dozens of sibling tools, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not say what the result looks like, whether the check is read-only, or how to scope it to a project. Only the core purpose is conveyed.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter, project_id, is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not mention that a project must be identified, nor that the parameter is optional, leaving the agent to guess the scope of the check.

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 states a specific verb ('检查' / check) and resource ('时间线' / timeline) and names the exact class of problems detected: causal contradictions and cycles. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like check_canon or validate_project, though it does not name them explicitly.

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, at what stage of the workflow, or how it relates to sibling validators such as validate_branch_graph or check_canon. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the phrase about causal contradictions.

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