预览命令结果

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It mentions the tool displays results in a webpage and is intended for viewing/copying, implying a non-destructive preview. However, it does not discuss any requirements, potential errors, or limitations beyond this basic behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by usage context. Every sentence contributes meaning with no wasted words or redundancies.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and timing. It could mention prerequisites or error conditions, but the simple nature of a preview tool makes this 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter (commandsFilePath), and the description essentially repeats the schema's description. It adds no additional meaning about the parameter's format or constraints, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 that the tool receives a command results file path and previews the built 7 Spec Kit commands in a webpage. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like build (which builds) and analyze, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states '用于在 build 构建命令后' (use after the build command), providing clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the timing context is sufficiently clear for a simple preview tool.

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