validate_code_standards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool validates code and returns problem lists with suggestions, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid inputs, whether there are rate limits, or what authentication might be required. For a validation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place - it specifies what's being validated (code snippets), against what standard (M8 development standards), and what's returned (problem lists and modification suggestions). No wasted words or redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, validation logic) and the absence of both annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't provide enough context about behavioral aspects or error handling. The lack of output schema means the description should ideally say more about the return format, but it only mentions '问题列表和修改建议' (problem lists and modification suggestions) without 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (code, file_type, vue_version) with their descriptions and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the 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 clearly states the specific action ('验证' - validate), the resource ('代码片段' - code snippet), and the purpose ('是否符合 M8 开发规范' - whether it complies with M8 development standards). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create_ioc_page, create_page, get_prompt) by focusing on validation rather than creation or retrieval operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this is for code validation, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate. The sibling tools are all creation/retrieval tools, so the distinction is obvious, but no explicit usage context is provided.

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