配置需求详情

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: starting a local web server, displaying a form, and waiting for user submission. However, it omits what happens after submission (e.g., saving to the file or returning data) and potential side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core action and then provide supporting details, with no redundant 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?

The description adequately describes the interactive workflow, but because there's no output schema, it should explain post-submit behavior. The agent is left uncertain about the return value or file modification, and no annotation helps.

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 100% since configFilePath is described as a path to a JSON file. The description reinforces this by saying it receives the path, but adds no new semantic details beyond connecting it to the flow.

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 clearly states a specific action: receiving a config file path and launching a visual UI for the user to fill in requirement details. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'gather' or 'preview' by describing a unique interactive workflow.

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 implies usage context: when you have a config file and want user input via a browser form. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'gather' or 'analyze'.

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