file_secretary_help

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this is a prerequisite step in the file-sending workflow, but it does not describe what the tool actually returns or what the agent should do after reading it.

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 short sentences with no wasted text. It is efficient, though the opening phrase '本机文件秘书流程' is somewhat compressed and could be clearer for an agent unfamiliar with the workflow.

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 help/prerequisite tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it says when to read it. However, it omits what the tool provides and what the agent should expect after invoking it, leaving some ambiguity about the resulting workflow.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics needed. The schema is correspondingly empty, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 identifies a 'local file secretary workflow' and tells the agent to read this tool before sending a file to the user, but it does not explicitly state what the tool returns (presumably workflow guidance/instructions). The purpose is inferable, but it is less clear than a direct verb+resource statement.

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 gives a clear trigger: when the user asks to send a file to themselves, read this tool first. It does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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