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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does reveal the mutation verbs (start/stop/restart/pause/unpause) versus the read op (ls), which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions required, whether stop/restart disrupt running containers, side effects, or reversibility.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the operation vocabulary front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it omits necessary context rather than being ideally sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the op set is documented. However, the meaning of 'id' is missing and there is no routing guidance against the many overlapping compose siblings, leaving the definition only minimally viable for a 2-parameter lifecycle-control tool.

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% and there are no enums in the schema, so the description must compensate. It fully enumerates the valid op values, which is real added meaning, but the required 'id' parameter is never explained — an agent must guess whether it is a project name, project ID, or container ID.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (Compose project control) and enumerates the exact operations, so an agent knows this operates on a Compose project's containers. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like dpanel_compose_list, dpanel_compose_deploy, or dpanel_compose_destroy, which overlap in scope.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The op list implies usage (lifecycle control vs. inspection), but nothing tells the agent how this differs from dpanel_compose_list for listing or dpanel_compose_destroy for teardown, nor what preconditions apply (e.g., the project must exist/deployed).

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real behavioral context: id triggers update mode and the tool returns the project id. However, it does not disclose side effects (whether creating/updating a project also deploys or starts containers), permission requirements, or what happens to existing containers on update — notable gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the create/update purpose and then the parameter rules, with essentially no filler. Dense and efficient, though the parenthetical constraint is somewhat compressed.

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?

An output schema exists, and the description still notes the returned project id, so return values are covered. The main remaining gap is that environment and title have no semantics anywhere, and side effects of a mutation tool with no annotations are not described.

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. It does document yaml semantics, the id-update rule, and supplies the compose_type enum values (text|remoteUrl|outPath) that the schema itself lacks — genuinely valuable. But title and environment remain completely undocumented, so coverage is partial.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('创建/更新 compose 项目') and clarifies that it both creates and updates depending on the id parameter, which distinguishes it from siblings like dpanel_compose_deploy or dpanel_compose_destroy. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the create/update scope is 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?

Gives concrete selection logic: pass id to update, omit it to create, and compose_type must be one of text|remoteUrl|outPath while storagePath/store cannot be created manually. No explicit 'use X instead' routing against dpanel_compose_deploy/get_from_git/get_from_uri, but the when-to-use conditions are clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'deploy/update' but does not disclose what gets replaced/destroyed, whether existing containers are recreated, what remove_orphans does, or any permission/auth requirements. This is thin for a mutating operation with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short clauses, no waste, with the core action front-loaded before the parameter clarifications. Efficiently structured, though it trades brevity against completeness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a four-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description omits environment and remove_orphans semantics and any behavioral detail. It is under-specified for the tool's complexity.

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. It explains id ('项目 id') and deploy_service_name (partial-service deployment), but leaves environment and remove_orphans completely undocumented in both schema and description. Two of four parameters gain meaning, so it only partially fills the gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination ('部署/更新 compose 项目' - deploy/update compose project), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like dpanel_compose_create and dpanel_compose_destroy. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with those siblings the way a 5 would.

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 notes that deploy_service_name can deploy only part of the services, which is a useful usage hint, but it gives no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance or preconditions relative to dpanel_compose_create or dpanel_compose_container_ctrl. Usage is only weakly implied.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden; it does flag the operation as destructive and mandates confirm=true. But it omits two of the most dangerous switches present in the schema (delete_image, delete_volume), so an agent cannot learn the full destructive surface from the description.

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, front-loaded with the destructive warning and the required confirm flag, followed by the flag semantics. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the core confirm/delete_data/delete_path semantics are covered. Still, for a maximally destructive tool the unexplained delete_image and delete_volume flags leave an agent without enough information to call it safely.

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 document all 6 parameters; it only explains confirm, delete_data, and delete_path. delete_image, delete_volume (both destructive) and the id parameter are left unexplained, so half the parameter semantics are 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?

States a specific verb (销毁/destroy) and resource (compose 项目) and immediately tags it as destructive, which cleanly separates it from siblings like dpanel_compose_create, dpanel_compose_deploy, and dpanel_compose_container_ctrl. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 hard precondition (confirm=true) and explains the effect of two flags, which is real usage guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over alternatives such as stopping containers via dpanel_compose_container_ctrl, or that the project must exist first, so routing guidance is only partial.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that the tool pulls a compose file from Git but does not disclose authentication requirements, whether it writes/overwrites local compose data, what 'name' controls, or any 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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is structurally clean, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with two undocumented required parameters.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations, no schema parameter descriptions, and no sibling differentiation, the one-line description leaves key invocation details missing for a two-required-parameter tool.

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 for both required parameters 'uri' and 'name'. It supplies no meaning for either parameter, leaving the agent unable to determine expected formats or the role of 'name' beyond guesswork.

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 gives a specific verb (拉取/pull) and resource (compose 文件) and names the source (Git 仓库), so the basic operation is clear. It does not mention the sibling dpanel_compose_get_from_uri, so an agent must infer the contrast from the source wording rather than being explicitly routed.

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 source phrase '从 Git 仓库' implies when this tool is applicable: when the compose file should come from a Git repository. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as dpanel_compose_get_from_uri.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read, but says nothing about whether the URL is fetched server-side, whether authentication or network egress restrictions apply, or what happens on an unreachable URL.

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?

A single short sentence that is appropriately sized and front-loads the action. Nothing extraneous, though it is arguably too terse to be useful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a network-fetch tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves key operational context missing.

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 single 'uri' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates only partially by implying the input is a URL; it gives no format, scheme, or accepted-location guidance.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetching compose file content from a URL. It is discernible from the sibling dpanel_compose_get_from_git by its URL source, though the description never names that alternative.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison against dpanel_compose_get_from_git, which is the obvious alternative source for a compose file. The agent must infer the choice purely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. '仅可查看' signals read-only behavior and the dangling id=0 caveat warns about a pseudo-project that cannot be operated on, which is genuinely useful. However, nothing is said about scope (all projects vs. current environment) or pagination/result limits.

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 compact clauses, purpose first, caveat second — nothing wasted. It is arguably too terse for a non-Chinese-speaking agent, but the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema already defined, the description only needs to cover purpose and any special semantics; it does both, including the dangling-project quirk. A short note on when to prefer this over compose_task/compose_log would make it fully complete.

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, so the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics to clarify beyond the implicit 'returns everything' behavior.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: listing Compose projects, plus the extra detail that each entry includes a running-container overview. This distinguishes it from compose_task/compose_log/compose_deploy siblings, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — read the list before acting on a compose project. The note that the dangling project (id=0) is view-only is a useful constraint, but there is no stated when-to-use vs. sibling compose tools.

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

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors: the accepted line_total values and that download=true returns the full text (implying it supersedes line_total). It omits auth requirements, pagination/tailing semantics, and error behavior for an unknown id.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the constraint list and the download flag are front-loaded. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the line_total set could read more clearly as an enumeration.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the two non-obvious parameters. However, with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the required id, permission requirements, and the relationship to sibling log tools remain unaddressed.

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% across three params, so the description must compensate. It documents line_total's enum-like set (50|100|200|500|1000|5000|-1) and download's effect, but leaves the required id param entirely unexplained and does not say whether -1 means unlimited.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: retrieving logs for a Compose project. It is distinguishable from dpanel_compose_list and dpanel_compose_task by the log resource, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling dpanel_log_list or dpanel_cron_log_list, which likely serve overlapping logging needs.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection guidance is given. The agent must infer that this is the Compose-scoped log reader and guess how it differs from dpanel_log_list; nothing states the condition that selects this tool over that one.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does convey that this is a detail/status read rather than a mutation. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior for an unknown id, or side effects. Since an output schema exists, the returned payload itself need not be re-explained.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the resource is stated first and the parameter clarification second. It is efficiently sized, though borderline terse for a tool whose schema documents nothing.

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 tool is simple (one required string param, output schema present), and the description covers the key ambiguity of where the id comes from. What is missing is routing guidance against the many sibling compose tools and any note on empty/invalid id handling, leaving it adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, but the description compensates well for the single parameter: it identifies it as the project id, specifies the format (numeric string), and states where it comes from (the list response). This is meaningfully more than the bare 'string' type in the schema.

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 names the resource in Chinese ('Compose 项目详情与任务状态'), so an agent learns this returns compose project details plus task status. However it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it blurs project details with task status (name says 'compose_task'), making it only partly distinguishable from siblings like compose_list and compose_log.

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 use by telling the agent that the id is a numeric string obtained from the list ('列表返回'), which is a useful prerequisite pointer. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over dpanel_compose_list, dpanel_compose_log, or dpanel_compose_deploy.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether the backup requires the container to be stopped, whether the operation blocks, where the snapshot is stored, what permissions are needed, or whether it is reversible — significant gaps for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded with the action then the parameter clarification. Nothing is redundant and nothing could be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations the description is too thin: it omits preconditions (e.g. container state), side effects, and when this is preferable to commit/export. It is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0% (the 'id' property has no description), so the description must compensate — and it does by clarifying that 'id' means the container ID. With only one parameter fully explained, this is adequate, though it adds no format or validity hints.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (create a container backup snapshot), which is easily distinguishable from sibling backup operations like dpanel_container_backup_list, backup_detail, backup_delete and backup_restore. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related snapshot-creating siblings such as dpanel_container_commit or dpanel_container_export.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dpanel_container_export or dpanel_container_commit, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive ('破坏性') and requires confirm=true, which are important behavioral traits beyond the schema. It does not mention irreversibility, permissions, or what happens to the backup data afterward.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the action, flags destructiveness, and states the required confirmation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 covers the core destructive nature and confirmation requirement, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. It is nearly complete for a simple delete operation, though it could clarify the id parameter and irreversibility.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning for the confirm parameter (must be true to proceed), but the id parameter remains undocumented beyond its type. Partial compensation justifies a middle score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: '删除备份' (delete backup). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling backup tools like backup_create, backup_restore, backup_list, and backup_detail. No explicit sibling naming, but the action is 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 implies use for deleting a backup and adds the critical requirement '需 confirm=true' (requires confirm=true). However, it does not state when to choose this over alternatives or any exclusions, leaving context to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about read-only nature, required permissions, or error behavior for a missing id. Since an output schema exists, the return shape need not be described, but the complete absence of behavioral context is a real gap.

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 no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than tight conciseness.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema, this is the minimum viable: purpose plus parameter meaning. It omits any read-only assurance or guidance on obtaining a valid id, which would round it out.

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% and the schema only declares id as a string, so the description's note that id is the backup record id does add meaning. However, it does not clarify format, source (e.g. from backup_list), or whether it is numeric, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

States a specific resource (备份记录/backup record) and operation (详情/detail), which distinguishes it from the sibling backup_list, backup_create, backup_delete and backup_restore tools. It is clear but does not explicitly name what it is not, so it falls 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?

There is no indication of when to call this tool versus the backup list, restore, or delete siblings. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare noun phrase. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or what fields a backup entry contains, though 'list' weakly implies a read-only retrieval.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — brevity here comes at the cost of any informative content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the tool takes no parameters, which lowers the burden. Still, with no annotations and no sibling differentiation, an agent has almost nothing to decide when to call this versus the other backup tools.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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 '容器备份列表' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title ('Dpanel Container Backup List'), with no verb or added scope. It does not distinguish this list tool from siblings such as dpanel_container_backup_detail or dpanel_container_backup_restore.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given. Among a dense sibling set (backup_detail, backup_create, backup_delete, backup_restore), the description never states that this is the enumeration entry point versus the detail or mutation tools, leaving routing entirely to inference.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important trait: this is destructive and requires confirm=true. It does not say what gets overwritten (container config, volumes, existing data) or whether the container must be stopped, so significant behavioral context is still missing.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the destructive warning and the confirm requirement are packed in efficiently. It is terse rather than padded, though it borders on under-specified.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves key gaps: the meaning of 'id', what state is destroyed or overwritten, and whether the container is stopped or replaced. The existing output schema covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the input semantics are not.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially clarifies 'confirm' (must be true, beyond the schema's default=false), but leaves 'id' ambiguous — it is unclear whether id identifies the backup to restore from or the container to restore into.

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?

States a specific verb and resource combination ('restore container from backup') that is clearly distinct from the sibling backup_list/detail/create/delete tools. It stops short of naming the target object of 'id' or the source backup, so the exact operation is slightly under-specified.

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?

Gives one concrete usage precondition ('需 confirm=true') and flags the operation as destructive, which tells the agent to be cautious. It offers no guidance on when to restore versus inspect a backup first, nor any prerequisite like stopping the container.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb '检查' implies a read-only check, but the description does not state permissions, side effects, or whether any state is changed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves essential usage and parameter details unstated.

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 tool has one undocumented parameter, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is too thin. The output schema covers return values, but usage context and parameter meaning remain incomplete.

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 schema has one port parameter with no description and a default of 0, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions '端口' generally but does not explain what the parameter accepts or what default 0 means.

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 resource: checking host port occupancy. It is clear enough to distinguish from most container lifecycle siblings, though it does not explicitly connect the tool to the container management context implied by its name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives exist. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare purpose. It does not say whether this mutates state, what permissions are required, whether the source container keeps running, or where the resulting image lands.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no structural content that earns its place beyond the bare purpose.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and two fully undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. It omits the container identifier semantics of 'md5' and the payload shape of 'option'.

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% and both parameters are opaque: 'md5' is undocumented and 'option' is a free-form object with no explanation. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call.

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 resource: committing a container into a new image. An agent can understand the basic operation, though it does not distinguish this from nearby siblings like dpanel_container_copy, dpanel_container_export, or the dpanel_image_build_* tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as dpanel_container_copy or export. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the mutation itself. It does not say whether the source container must be stopped, whether volumes/network config are duplicated, what permissions are required, or that a new container ID results.

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 the key parameter fact front-loaded, so there is no waste. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, given a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. Still, for an unannotated, destructive/mutating tool with two required opaque parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves too much unsaid for reliable invocation.

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. It usefully clarifies that copy_name is the new container's name, but leaves md5 completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it identifies the source container or is a hash of something else.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('复制容器' / copy container), so the agent knows this duplicates a container. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as dpanel_container_commit or dpanel_container_export, which also produce derived artifacts from a container.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (commit, export, create). The agent must infer that this duplicates an existing container rather than creating one from an image.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is destructive, requires confirm=true, and can optionally cascade to image, volume, and link deletion. However, it omits permission requirements, whether running containers can be deleted, irreversibility details, and failure behavior when confirm is false.

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. The destructive nature and confirm requirement are front-loaded before optional cascading deletions, making the risk profile immediately clear.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive 5-parameter delete tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the key risk warning and most optional flags but leaves the required md5 identifier and operational preconditions unclear.

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. It meaningfully explains confirm=true and maps the optional delete flags to image/volume/link deletion, covering 4 of 5 parameters. The required md5 parameter remains unexplained, which is a notable gap for a required identifier.

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 resource: deleting a dpanel container, and flags it as destructive. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from close siblings such as dpanel_container_prune or dpanel_compose_destroy, so sibling differentiation is missing.

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 the obvious use case (delete a container) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over prune, compose destroy, or other container lifecycle tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated beyond the required confirm=true.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, whether the call is a safe read, failure behavior for unknown IDs, or rate limits. The only behavioral hint is implicit in the word 'detail' (a non-mutating lookup).

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the parameter clarification. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries meaning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is covered. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition is minimally sufficient rather than complete for a tool embedded in a large container tool family.

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% (the schema only declares md5 as a bare string), so the description is the sole source of semantics. It usefully explains that md5 is the container ID and that either the full ID or a prefix is accepted, which is real information beyond the schema.

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 clear resource (container) and operation (fetch details), so an agent can tell this is a read of a single container. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like dpanel_container_stat, dpanel_container_status, or dpanel_container_process, so the reader must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives. The reader is left to infer that this is the lookup tool for a single container, but no condition or exclusion routes the agent between this and the many other container_* siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says the output is an image tar. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or writes to disk, where the tar is saved, permission requirements, or any 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?

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is arguably too terse for a tool with an undocumented parameter, missing essential context that would make the brevity appropriately sized.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But the description fails to cover the critical 'md5' parameter and provides no usage context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 single required parameter 'md5' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The agent cannot know what value to supply for 'md5', making correct invocation impossible without guesswork.

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 resource: 'export container as image tar'. This is clear and distinguishable from generic container operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like dpanel_container_commit or dpanel_container_backup_create that also produce 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dpanel_container_commit or dpanel_container_backup_create. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does add a genuinely useful trait — the API is unpaginated and returns the full set — but omits anything about read-only safety, permissions, or result size implications for large hosts.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: what is returned, how to filter, and the pagination caveat. Front-loaded and free of padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not strictly required, and the description still summarizes returned fields. The combination of the pagination note and filter semantics makes it largely sufficient for a read-only list tool, with minor gaps around filter interaction.

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, and it does: it explains that md5 is the container ID and site_title is a site-name filter. It still doesn't clarify defaults, requiredness, or filter combination behavior, but the core semantics of both params are conveyed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (container list) and enumerates the fields returned (status, image, name, network), which cleanly separates it from dpanel_container_detail and dpanel_container_stat. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 filter conditions (by md5/container ID or site name) and a behavioral caveat about pagination, which implies how to call it. However, it never states when to prefer this over dpanel_container_detail or dpanel_network_container_list, nor what happens when both filters are supplied.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '列表' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the container must be running, pagination, or failure modes for a nonexistent container ID.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the parameter meaning. No filler, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is documented. What remains missing for a container-scoped tool is any note about container state requirements or how the process data is scoped.

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 0% and the schema only names a bare string 'id', so the description's clarification that id is the container ID is genuinely additive. With a single parameter this fully compensates for the missing schema description.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it lists processes running inside a container, and it identifies the target via the container ID. This is distinguishable from sibling tools like dpanel_container_stat or dpanel_container_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. container must be running), and never names an alternative among the many container siblings. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the two most important traits: '破坏性' (destructive/irreversible) and the heavy precondition '需 confirm=true'. It stops short of saying whether all stopped containers are affected (e.g. dangling-only filtering) or what happens if confirm is false.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, then the risk, then the precondition. Nothing is padded and no clause is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the terse form covers the essentials for a destructive operation. The remaining gap is scope precision (which stopped containers, whether recovery is possible), but it is minor for a pruning tool.

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 single boolean parameter 'confirm' has 0% schema description coverage and a default of false, and the description supplies the missing semantics: it must be true for the operation to proceed. That is real added meaning, though the default/omission behavior is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with a scope qualifier: 清理 (prune) 停止的容器 (stopped containers). An agent can immediately tell this removes stopped containers rather than running ones. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other destructive siblings such as dpanel_container_delete.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope phrase 'stopped containers', which does distinguish it from volume/image/network prune siblings by resource. It names no alternative and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stays at the minimum-viable level.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. Calling it 'statistics' implies a read-only operation, but the description never confirms read-only semantics, says whether it works on running vs stopped containers, or notes any permission requirements. It discloses almost nothing beyond the metric names.

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 the purpose and the metric list front-loaded, and the parameter meaning appended. No wasted words; it is terse but appropriately so for a simple read tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the one parameter is explained. What remains missing is the routing information an agent needs to choose this tool over the near-identical dpanel_container_status/detail siblings.

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 0% and the schema only types 'id' as a string. The description compensates by clarifying that id is the container ID, which is meaningful disambiguation (container vs compose vs image id) for a single-parameter tool, though it adds no format or lookup guidance.

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?

States a specific verb-resource pair — container resource statistics — and even enumerates the metrics returned (CPU/memory/network IO). However, it offers no differentiation from the very similarly named siblings dpanel_container_status and dpanel_container_detail, so an agent must guess which of the three returns live resource usage.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all and no mention of alternatives such as dpanel_container_status or dpanel_container_process. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name, which is risky given the overlapping sibling names.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that these are mutating operations, whether they are reversible, what happens to a paused container, permission requirements, or what the output schema reports. The lifecycle verbs hint at mutation but nothing is stated.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the operation set is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it omits any mention of the container identifier the caller must supply.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutating tool with zero annotations and an undocumented required identifier, the definition leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently against the many sibling container tools.

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% and the schema declares no enum for 'operate', so the description's enumeration of start|stop|restart|pause|unpause is a real and necessary addition. The required 'md5' parameter (the container identifier) is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so coverage is only partial.

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 (lifecycle control) and resource (container) and enumerates the operations, which is genuinely informative. However it conflicts with the tool name and title 'container_status', which implies a read-only status query — an agent scanning names would not expect start/stop/restart semantics here. It also does not differentiate from sibling dpanel_compose_container_ctrl.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no routing away from the closely related dpanel_compose_container_ctrl sibling. The operate enum implies context but the agent is left to infer that this is the single-container control path.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it does not state whether the change requires a container restart, whether it is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how existing config not mentioned in 'option' is treated. The note that 'option 结构与面板一致' hints at the payload shape but discloses nothing about runtime 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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before listing affected fields. Nothing is padded, though it is under-specified rather than truly concise in the informative sense.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, a free-form nested 'option' object, 0% schema coverage, and 2 required params, the description should do far more. An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the missing semantics for 'md5' and 'option', plus the absence of any behavioral or safety context, leave the definition materially incomplete.

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. It only clarifies that 'option' mirrors the panel's structure — a hint, but not a usable spec for a free-form object with additionalProperties:true. The required 'md5' parameter is never explained at all, leaving the agent to guess it identifies the container.

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?

States a specific verb (更新) and resource (容器配置) and enumerates the updatable areas (重启策略/环境变量/端口等), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not, however, contrast itself with near-siblings such as dpanel_container_commit or dpanel_compose_container_ctrl, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisite conditions, and no warning about side effects. The only guidance is implicit in the name and the field list. An agent must infer that this is the tool for modifying an existing container's runtime configuration.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core mechanic: a new image is pulled and the container is rebuilt while configuration is preserved. Missing is any statement about downtime/recreation impact, irreversibility, or what the default-true enable_bak actually backs up — meaningful gaps for a mutating, rebuild-style operation.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core operation is stated first and the parameter hint second. Efficient, though extremely terse for the operation's weight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Nonetheless, for a container-rebuild tool with an undocumented required md5 and an undocumented enable_bak flag, the definition leaves an agent without enough to call it confidently; it is minimally viable rather than complete.

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% across 3 parameters. The description explains only image_tag semantics (empty = original image) and says nothing about the required md5 identifier or the enable_bak default-true backup flag, so two of three parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb+resource with a clear mechanic: '升级容器（拉新镜像并重建，保留配置）' — pull the new image and rebuild while keeping config. This distinguishes it from a config-level sibling like dpanel_container_update, though it never explicitly names that sibling or the upgrade_list/upgrade_check pair.

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 one genuine usage rule — 'image_tag 留空用原镜像' (leave image_tag empty to reuse the existing image) — which tells an agent how to call it in the default case. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over dpanel_container_update or the upgrade_check sibling, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating check, but says nothing about required permissions, whether it contacts a registry, latency, or rate limits. An output schema exists, which covers return values, but the operational profile is undisclosed.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence is a near-tautology that consumes half the description without adding information. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read. However, the description leaves usage context, the sibling relationship, and parameter format entirely uncovered, which is thin even for a simple tool.

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% and the single parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description's 'container_id 为容器 ID' merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, source, or accepted-value information (e.g., ID vs. name). It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether a single container's image has an update. The word '单个' (single) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling dpanel_container_upgrade_list, though it never names that alternative. Clear enough for an agent to identify the action.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related siblings dpanel_container_upgrade_list (list all) or dpanel_container_upgrade (perform the upgrade). The agent must infer the position of this tool in the upgrade workflow.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the mutation. It does not say whether the ignore entry is reversible or how to remove it, what permission/scope is needed, whether it affects only the local node, or what the response contains beyond the existing output schema.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and nothing is padded. It is efficient but so terse that brevity comes at the cost of content rather than through it.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, two undocumented parameters, and no explanation of the md5/image_id distinction, the description is not sufficient to call the tool correctly. Only the existence of an output schema relieves it of describing return values.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing. The required 'md5' is genuinely ambiguous (md5 of an image? of a container? of an upgrade plan?) and 'image_id' is never mentioned, so an agent cannot confidently populate either field.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('ignore container upgrade') and adds the state change (added to the ignore list), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like dpanel_container_upgrade_check or dpanel_container_upgrade_list. It does not, however, contrast itself against those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of the other upgrade tools (upgrade, upgrade_check, upgrade_list), nor any stated precondition such as having run a check first. The 'adds to ignore list' phrasing implies a follow-up action but leaves the triggering context to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read/list operation and mentions digest comparison, but discloses nothing about permissions, whether it scans remote registries, latency, or how it relates to upgrade_check. For a zero-annotation tool this is thin.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and adds the digest-comparison detail without filler. Terse but not under-specified relative to its low complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the zero-parameter schema is trivial. However, given the dense cluster of upgrade-related siblings, the description is not complete enough to route an agent reliably among them.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema, which is empty.

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?

States a specific resource and verb: a list of container upgrade checks with upgradable image digest comparison. The purpose is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the near-identical siblings dpanel_container_upgrade_check, dpanel_container_upgrade, and dpanel_container_upgrade_ignore, so an agent cannot tell which of the upgrade-family tools to pick from the description alone.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. With three closely named upgrade siblings (upgrade_check, upgrade, upgrade_ignore), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap, though the 'list' framing weakly implies a read-only inspection step.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful constraints beyond schema: trigger_type is limited to cron|event|manual and spec is a cron expression only when trigger=cron. It says nothing about required permissions, side effects, or failure modes for this mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus the trigger_type constraint are front-loaded. Terse but every sentence carries 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 create/mutation tool with a nested 'option' object and no annotations, the description covers the key conditional logic and defers option details to a sibling (dpanel_cron_template). Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but permissions, error handling, and the option fields themselves remain unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it meaningfully explains three of four params: trigger_type's enum values, spec's meaning and conditional applicability, and where to find the option structure. Only 'title' is left unexplained, which is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('创建计划任务' / create a scheduled task), which clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented cron siblings like dpanel_cron_list and dpanel_cron_detail. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is 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?

Implicitly routes the agent to dpanel_cron_template to learn the 'option' structure, which is a useful pointer. However, it gives no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is destructive and requires confirm=true, which is essential for safe invocation. However, it omits other relevant traits such as permissions required, irreversibility beyond the word 'destructive', and whether logs or related data are also removed.

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, front-loaded sentence containing the operation, its destructive nature, and the confirm requirement. There is no wasted text. The structure puts the most important safety guidance immediately after the action.

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 simple delete tool with an output schema, return values do not need explanation. The description covers the critical destructive warning and confirm gate, but with no annotations it should ideally say more about permissions, side effects, or what exactly is deleted. It is minimally adequate.

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%, and the description adds meaning for only one of the two parameters: confirm must be true despite the schema defaulting it to false. The required id parameter is not described beyond the operation name implying it identifies the scheduled task. This is partial compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 resource: '删除计划任务' (delete scheduled task). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like dpanel_cron_list, dpanel_cron_create, or dpanel_cron_prune_log. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 implies the tool is used for deletion and adds a critical condition: '需 confirm=true'. However, it does not compare with alternatives such as dpanel_cron_prune_log or explain when deletion is appropriate versus other cron management actions. The guidance is implied but not explicitly framed around alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it provides none. It does not state it is a read-only lookup, whether the id must exist, or what happens for missing tasks.

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?

Extremely short, which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than concise-and-complete. The single sentence is front-loaded but carries almost no 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a detail-fetch tool with no annotations and an undocumented id, the description leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites and lookup behavior.

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?

Single required 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not — it says nothing about the id's format or source. Baseline of 3 applies for the trivial single-param case, but no added meaning is given.

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?

States a specific verb-noun ('计划任务详情' / Cron task detail), which is a clear resource reference. However, it is boilerplate across the many '_detail' siblings (env_detail, container_detail, image_detail, network_detail, volume_detail), offering no distinction from those beyond the entity name embedded in the tool name itself.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus dpanel_cron_list or the other cron siblings. The agent must infer that 'detail' means fetching a single record's full information by id, but nothing is stated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, filtering behavior, or scope (all tasks vs. project-scoped). For a zero-annotation tool this is thin, though the low-risk nature of a list limits the harm.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no waste and the purpose is front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness — the brevity leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters to document. However, with eight sibling cron tools, the description gives no scope, ordering, or relationship context, leaving the agent unable to confidently route between this and dpanel_cron_detail.

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, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter semantics are 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?

"计划任务列表" states a resource (scheduled tasks) and implies the list operation, but it essentially restates the tool name (dpanel_cron_list) without distinguishing it from siblings like dpanel_cron_detail or dpanel_cron_log_list. An agent can infer the basic purpose but gets no scope detail.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as dpanel_cron_detail for a single task. The agent must infer that this is the browse-all entry point purely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, pagination, ordering, result limits, or required permissions. It is silent on every behavioral trait an agent would need.

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?

It is a single short sentence, but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded or elaborated because nothing of substance is said.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be described), the definition omits the one thing that matters: what the required 'id' identifies and what the tool does with it. For a required-parameter lookup tool, this is inadequate.

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?

There is one required parameter, 'id', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. Whether it is a cron job id or a log entry id, and its format, is entirely unstated, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 '计划任务执行日志。' essentially restates the tool name/title (Cron Log List) without adding a verb or scope. It tells the agent the resource is a scheduled-task execution log but not that the tool lists or retrieves those logs, nor how it differs from dpanel_cron_list, dpanel_log_list, or dpanel_cron_prune_log.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. With siblings like dpanel_cron_list and dpanel_log_list in the set, the agent is given nothing to disambiguate when this tool is appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does the important work of flagging the operation as destructive and requiring an explicit confirm=true gate, but it does not disclose the scope of destruction (all logs for the task? older than a threshold?), reversibility, or any permission requirements.

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?

A single compact sentence with the destructive warning and confirmation gate front-loaded via parenthetical. No filler, though the parenthetical format is slightly dense for the amount of information conveyed.

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 output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on a 2-parameter mutation tool, the description leaves the meaning of the required id and the precise scope of the pruning undefined, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive operation.

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 for both parameters. It clarifies the confirm parameter's required value (true), but the required id parameter is left completely unexplained — the agent cannot tell whether it is a task ID, a log ID, or something else.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("清理计划任务日志" = prune/clean cron task logs), which distinguishes it from the read-only cron siblings like dpanel_cron_log_list and dpanel_cron_detail. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings or clarify how pruning differs from deleting a task (dpanel_cron_delete).

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 states a prerequisite ("需 confirm=true") rather than when-to-use guidance. It implies this is the tool for removing cron logs but never contrasts it with dpanel_cron_log_list (view logs) or dpanel_cron_delete (remove the task itself), leaving the agent to infer the selection boundary.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. Since an output schema exists, return values needn't be explained, but the description doesn't state whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the task is already running, or any 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?

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and efficient. It could be slightly more informative without being verbose, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

With no annotations, an output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks details on behavior, permissions, and the meaning of the 'id' parameter, which would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 should compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. The description provides no information about the parameter, leaving the agent without guidance on what 'id' refers to or its format.

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 '立即执行一次计划任务' clearly states the action (run once immediately) and resource (scheduled task), distinguishing it from sibling dpanel_cron_list and dpanel_cron_detail. However, it doesn't name the alternative or clarify scope beyond the action itself.

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 word '立即' implies immediate execution as opposed to scheduled, which hints at when to use it, but there are no explicit when-to-use statements, exclusions, or references to alternatives like dpanel_cron_list or dpanel_cron_detail.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The word '列表' implies a non-destructive read, and the fixed count of 10 hints at a static, cacheable catalog, but the description never states read-only behavior, pagination, or where these templates come from. Adequate but thin for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though so terse that it leaves the other dimensions under-served.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and a zero-parameter tool has little to specify. However, the description omits the one thing that would complete it for an agent: what these templates are for and how they relate to dpanel_cron_create.

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, so per the baseline there is no parameter semantics to explain and the schema cannot be deficient. Nothing in the description misrepresents the empty input contract.

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?

States a specific resource and verb ('计划任务模板列表' = scheduled-task template list) and even quantifies the payload (10 official templates), which distinguishes it from dpanel_cron_list, dpanel_cron_detail and dpanel_cron_create. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the difference between 'templates' and 'actual cron jobs'.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is a static catalog to read before calling dpanel_cron_create or something refreshed dynamically. Usage is only implied by the word 'list'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool. It implies a write operation and a remote connection but says nothing about authentication needs, connection validation, failure behavior, or whether creating an env affects the currently active environment.

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?

A single short sentence with the key scope detail front-loaded in the parenthetical. No wasted words, though it is arguably under-specified rather than truly concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, three undocumented required parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. The output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but input and behavioral gaps remain significant.

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% for three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It only partially clarifies 'address' as a remote Docker host; 'name' and 'title' are entirely unexplained, and no format or uniqueness constraints are given.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: creating a Docker environment, with the parenthetical clarifying it connects to a remote Docker host. It is distinguishable from siblings like dpanel_env_list, dpanel_env_detail, and dpanel_env_delete, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus dpanel_env_switch or dpanel_env_detail, nor any prerequisites (e.g., whether the remote host must be reachable first). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key traits: the operation is destructive and a confirmation flag is required. It does not state what exactly is deleted (e.g., containers, volumes, configuration), whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are needed. Useful but incomplete safety context.

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?

A single, tightly constructed sentence with no filler. The destructive nature and confirmation requirement are front-loaded, so the most important risk information is seen immediately.

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 destructive deletion tool with no annotations, the description provides only minimal safety context (destructive + confirm gate) and omits consequences, scope of deletion, and prerequisites. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Adequate but thin for the risk level of the operation.

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% and there are two parameters. The description adds critical semantic value for 'confirm' by stating it must be true, which is essential given its default of false. However, 'env_name' is not described at all, leaving half the parameters undocumented beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('删除 Docker 环境'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like dpanel_env_create, dpanel_env_list, and dpanel_env_switch. An agent can tell exactly what the tool does without needing to infer from the name alone.

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 gives an important invocation condition (requires confirm=true) and labels the action as destructive, which helps an agent decide whether to proceed. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe prerequisites beyond the confirmation flag. Usage is implied by the resource name, not explained.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only nature, required permissions, error behavior, or what happens for a missing environment. It is a bare restatement of the title.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise — brevity here costs the agent needed information instead of earning its place.

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?

An output schema exists, which relieves the description of explaining return values, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves the agent without the environment-scoping or name-format context needed for correct invocation.

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% for the single required 'name' parameter. The description does not clarify whether 'name' is an environment name, ID, or slug, nor its format. Only the tool name weakly implies the parameter refers to an environment identifier.

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 "Docker 环境详情" essentially restates the tool title (Dpanel Env Detail) and its name (dpanel_env_detail). It implies a read of environment details but names no distinguishing scope or verb beyond what the name already conveys, and gives no contrast with siblings like dpanel_env_list or dpanel_env_switch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other env tools (dpanel_env_list, dpanel_env_switch, dpanel_env_create, dpanel_env_delete). No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routes are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds one useful behavioral fact (the result includes the current environment), but does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor anything about ordering or result size — though the presence of an output schema softens the return-value gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the scope parenthetical front-loaded. Zero waste, though it is arguably terse enough that a bit more context would still have earned its place.

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 list tool with an output schema that defines return values, the description covers what the tool returns (the set of Docker environments) clearly enough to call it correctly. The only omission is a declaration of read-only safety, which no annotation supplies.

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, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are missing or misrepresented.

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?

States a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (Docker 环境), and adds scope detail that the current environment is included. The plural/list framing distinguishes it from dpanel_env_detail, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied — enumerate environments — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. It does not point to dpanel_env_detail for inspection or dpanel_env_switch for changing the current env, leaving routing to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a state mutation (switching the active environment) but says nothing about scope or persistence — whether the change applies to subsequent calls, whether it is session- or server-global, or whether it can be reverted. For a context-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. However, for a one-parameter tool that silently mutates the agent's operating environment, the definition omits the side effect, the source of valid env_name values, and any reversal path — leaving the agent under-informed about the call's consequences.

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% for the single parameter env_name, so the description must compensate and does not. It never states that env_name is an identifier string that must match an existing environment, nor where to obtain valid values.

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?

States a concrete verb ('切换' / switch) and resource ('当前 Docker 环境') with a scoping qualifier ('多主机' / multi-host). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like dpanel_env_list or dpanel_env_delete, but it never names those siblings explicitly to reinforce the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisite such as 'call dpanel_env_list first to obtain a valid env_name'. The agent must infer that this tool targets the session's active environment rather than any per-call override.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions required, behavior on binary/large files, directory paths, or error conditions. 'Read' weakly implies non-destructive access, which is the only behavioral signal present.

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 single sentence is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the bare verb because there is nothing else, and the description fails to earn its place relative to the schema name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a two-required-parameter path tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent unable to determine path semantics or any access constraints.

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% for both required parameters, and the description adds no meaning at all for 'file' or 'mount_point'. An agent cannot tell whether file is an absolute path, relative to mount_point, or whether mount_point is required for every call.

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 clear verb+resource (read file contents), which distinguishes it from listing/delete/mkdir siblings. However it omits any scope qualifiers (path form, mount_point meaning) and does not name or contrast any sibling, so an agent gets only a generic read action.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as dpanel_explorer_list (for directories) or dpanel_explorer_stat. The agent must infer that this tool is for files only.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important traits: the operation is destructive and requires confirm=true. However it omits whether deletion is recursive for directories, whether it is recoverable, and what permission level is needed.

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?

A single short sentence with the destructive warning and confirm requirement front-loaded; there is no wasted text. Its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight writing, but structurally it is well organized.

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 destructive three-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but mount_point/file_list semantics and the scope of the deletion are left entirely to inference.

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 for three undocumented parameters, yet it only mentions confirm. Neither mount_point (what it scopes to) nor file_list (format/relative vs absolute paths, directory handling) is explained.

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 (删除/delete) and resource (文件/files) and adds a critical qualifier about destructiveness. It does not distinguish itself from other delete tools in the wider set, but within the explorer family the intent is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. dpanel_explorer_export/import, dpanel_volume_delete) and no mention of prerequisites such as required permissions or which mounts are valid. The only 'condition' given is the confirm flag, which is a runtime requirement rather than usage guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says '导出文件（打包）' and gives no information about permissions required, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens to the files, or any side effects. This is a serious gap for a tool with no structured hints.

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 extremely short (one sentence fragment) with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, a single terse phrase does not earn its place by conveying necessary 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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity. With no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and two required parameters, it fails to explain what mount_point means, what file_list contains, or what packaging entails. An agent cannot call this tool correctly based on the description.

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%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('mount_point' or 'file_list'). It adds no meaning beyond the bare parameter names in the schema. With two required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb ('导出' / export) and resource ('文件' / files) with the added note that it packages them ('打包'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like dpanel_explorer_import or dpanel_explorer_unzip, and it omits what exactly is being exported or from where. It is more than a tautology but remains vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or any of the many sibling explorer tools (e.g., import, unzip). The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that files are imported, a mutation implied by the verb; it says nothing about overwrite/merge behavior on existing destination files, permission requirements, size limits, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 fragments with zero padding, and the action is front-loaded. The brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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 3-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description is too thin: destination and mount semantics are undocumented. The existence of an output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the input-side gaps remain significant.

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% across all three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It helpfully reveals the item shape of file_list as [{name, path}], but mount_point and dst_path are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to determine their expected format or relationship.

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 verb+resource ('导入文件' / import files), which is enough to know it moves files into the explorer. However it never says where files are imported to or from, nor how it differs from the closely named sibling dpanel_explorer_export or dpanel_explorer_unzip, so the purpose is only minimally differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required mount point validity), and no mention of alternatives such as dpanel_explorer_unzip for archives or dpanel_explorer_export for the reverse direction. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read (listing) but never states whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires elevated permissions, what happens on a nonexistent mount_point, or how errors surface. Only the minimum is conveyed.

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 filler and the mount_point grammar front-loaded after the purpose. It is terse rather than bloated, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema coverage and no annotations the description should cover the 'path' parameter, the read-only nature, and how it differs from sibling explorer reads. It covers only the mount_point syntax, leaving substantial gaps.

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, and it partially does: it documents the critical mount_point value grammar (volume:<name> | container:<id> | docker:<env>). However the 'path' parameter and its '/' default are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('文件列表' = file listing) and the tool name corroborates it, but gives no differentiation from close siblings like dpanel_explorer_content, dpanel_explorer_stat, or dpanel_explorer_path_size, all of which also read from the explorer filesystem.

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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus dpanel_explorer_content or the other explorer read tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not that this is a mutating/write operation, not whether it fails or succeeds when the directory already exists (idempotency), not whether parent directories are created, and not what permissions are required. For a state-changing filesystem tool this is a serious omission.

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?

A single short sentence is technically concise, but at this length the problem is under-specification rather than efficiency; there is no front-loaded scope or key constraint to anchor the call.

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?

With two undocumented required parameters, no annotations, and a mutation that affects the filesystem, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely or correctly. The presence of an output schema covers return values but does not compensate for the missing input and behavioral context.

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% and both required parameters (mount_point, dst_path) are bare strings with no further documentation. The description does not explain what a 'mount_point' is, the expected path format, or whether paths are relative or absolute, leaving an agent unable to fill the parameters confidently.

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 resource ('新建目录' = create a directory), which maps cleanly onto the tool name and distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like dpanel_explorer_list or dpanel_explorer_stat. It offers no scope detail (e.g., single-level vs recursive, which filesystem) or explicit differentiation from other explorer mutation tools such as dpanel_explorer_import or dpanel_explorer_unzip.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no reference to alternative explorer tools for adjacent operations. An agent must infer everything about applicability from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether traversal is recursive, whether it can be slow or expensive on large trees, what permissions are required, or what happens when the path does not exist.

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 single phrase is maximally concise with zero waste and is front-loaded by default. However, this is brevity born of under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it should not be rewarded as strong conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. Still, for a two-required-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the description is far too thin for an agent to call it confidently in the right situations.

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% and the description adds no meaning for either required parameter. It never explains that mount_point selects the underlying mount/volume and path is resolved relative to it, nor the expected path format (absolute, relative, trailing slash).

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 recognizable purpose (directory size statistics) for the dpanel_explorer_path_size tool, so an agent can infer it computes the size of a directory. However it is a bare noun phrase with no scope or differentiation from siblings such as dpanel_explorer_stat or dpanel_explorer_content, which plausibly also report on paths.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus dpanel_explorer_stat or dpanel_explorer_content, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description is purely a purpose label, so the agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a mutation ('修改') but does not mention required permissions, whether changes are recursive, failure behavior, or any side effects. It adds only the bare minimum beyond the tool name.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loads the core action before adding parameter hints. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite an output schema that removes the need to describe return values, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations. It omits critical context such as the meaning of mount_point, how file_list is interpreted, and any safety or permission requirements, leaving an agent with significant gaps.

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 for all four parameters. It partially explains 'mod' (e.g., 644) and 'owner' (username), but says nothing about the required parameters 'mount_point' and 'file_list', leaving their meaning and interplay unclear.

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+resource: '修改文件权限/所有者' (modify file permissions/owner). It clearly distinguishes this tool from other explorer siblings (e.g., listing, deleting) by focusing on permission/ownership changes, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, with no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly addressed.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not say whether this is a read-only operation, what stat fields are returned, whether it follows symlinks, or how it behaves on missing paths.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler and the topic is front-loaded, so it is efficient. However, brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the description omits the mount_point/path semantics, any usage context, and any behavioral traits for a tool with zero annotations. It is not sufficient for an agent to call this confidently.

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% for two required parameters (mount_point, path), and the description compensates with nothing. There is no hint about the relationship between the mount point and the path, or what format either expects.

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 '文件 stat 信息。' essentially restates the tool name (dpanel_explorer_stat) as 'file stat info'. It hints at reading filesystem metadata but names no specific operation outcome and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings like dpanel_explorer_path_size or dpanel_system_stat_list.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as dpanel_explorer_list, dpanel_explorer_content, and dpanel_explorer_path_size operating on the same explorer resource, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says nothing about overwrite behavior for existing files, supported archive formats, required permissions, or whether the source archive is removed — all critical for a write operation.

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 single sentence is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope or actionable detail to begin with.

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 mutation tool with a three-parameter required schema, zero parameter documentation, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. The output schema existing relieves some return-value burden, but nothing about invocation semantics is covered.

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?

All three parameters (file, path, mount_point) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. The agent cannot tell the relationship between 'file' and 'path', nor what mount_point refers to.

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 "解压压缩文件" (decompress a compressed file) essentially restates the tool name "unzip". It names a resource type but adds no scope, format support, or distinction from sibling explorer operations such as dpanel_explorer_import or dpanel_explorer_export.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., archive must already exist at the given path). The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says a task is created from a Dockerfile but does not state whether the build starts immediately, what permissions are needed, what the option field controls, or whether the task is reversible/deletable.

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 no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. Slightly terse for the amount of behavioral context needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and an opaque option parameter, the description omits critical context about permissions, build execution, and the option field.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains only that tags is the target image tag; the option parameter (an arbitrary object) is left completely unexplained, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: creating an image build task from a Dockerfile. This distinguishes it from sibling build operations like dpanel_image_build_run, dpanel_image_build_list, and dpanel_image_build_delete, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dpanel_image_build_run or other image build siblings. The reader can infer it creates a task, but there are no preconditions or exclusions stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the operation is destructive and needs confirm=true, which is behavior beyond the bare schema. However it says nothing about permissions, whether the deletion is reversible, or side effects on running builds.

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?

A single short sentence with the critical destructive/confirm warning front-loaded after the verb. Efficient, though the brevity leaves gaps given zero schema coverage.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, which helps. But for a destructive tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is thinner than ideal, notably omitting any meaning for the id parameter.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter meaning. The description adds value by tying confirm=true to the destructive nature, but the required id parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (删除) and resource (镜像构建任务), clearly distinguishing it from dpanel_image_delete and dpanel_image_build_prune. It is unambiguous what the tool acts on, though it does not explicitly name its siblings.

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 notes the operation is destructive and requires confirm=true, but gives no guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as dpanel_image_build_prune, nor any prerequisites. Usage context is only loosely implied.

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