核对构建产物

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it is purely a static integrity check, does not execute the artifact, and explicitly disclaims installability or runnability. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single compound sentence with no filler. The core verification purpose is front-loaded, and the non-execution caveat is added concisely without repeating annotation information.

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 read-only verification tool, the description covers target scope, what is checked, and what is not performed. It does not describe the result format or how it relates to build_status, which is a minor gap given there is no output schema, but the invocation context is otherwise sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description links '入口' to entryPaths and suggests the artifact-checking context for jobId, but it does not explicitly explain projectId/jobId roles or entryPaths format. It only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 specifies a concrete verb ('检查/verify') and a precise resource: the complete file set, entry points, and SHA-256 checksums of a successful build. It also explicitly disambiguates itself from execution/runtime siblings by stating it does not imply installability/runnability and does not execute artifacts.

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?

It clearly scopes the tool to successful tasks ('已成功任务'), giving an agent a clear context for when it applies. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like cocos_build_status or cocos_runtime_instances, but the usage context is still clear enough to avoid confusion.

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