Batch analyze all cached mini programs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one valuable behavioral trait — that the operation is long-running — but says nothing about whether it mutates anything, whether results are cached, or what it produces, which matters for a tool that touches every cached app.

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 short sentences with zero waste: scope first, then the cost/usage caveat. Every clause earns its place and the key constraint (long runtime) is front-loaded enough to be seen before invocation.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers what it does and its main practical caveat. The remaining gap is what the agent gets back and whether the operation is read-only, which a comprehensive-scan tool arguably should state.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies since no parameter meaning is missing.

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 and scope: batch-analyze every mini program cached on the local machine. 'All' versus a single-target tool like mp_analyze gives an implicit scope distinction, but the description never names the alternative explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Suitable for comprehensive scanning' hints at when to reach for this tool, implying it is the full-sweep option. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not point to mp_analyze or mp_list_apps as the narrower alternative, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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