script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds important context beyond that: the operation is offline, does not execute code, and map mode is restricted to an explicit mapPath. It does not describe error behavior or filesystem effects, but the added behavioral context is meaningful.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds return categories, the no-execution constraint, and the mapPath rule. It contains no obvious filler, though the semicolon-separated clauses could be easier to scan if structured as separate sentences.

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 tool with 6 parameters, 2 enums, and no output schema, the description supplies a useful high-level purpose and return categories. However, it leaves key parameter semantics and action-specific behavior unclear, and it does not describe the return shape beyond naming result categories. It is adequate but incomplete relative to 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% across 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameter meaning. It describes the action concepts and explicitly constrains mapPath, but it says nothing about line, column, syntax, and barely clarifies path semantics. Four parameters remain effectively 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?

The description names specific actions (“索引或格式化”) and supported input languages (JS/TS/JSX/Flow), and it lists return categories such as functions, dependencies, call sites, strings, and URLs. This makes the tool's resource and scope clear, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as decode or native.

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 by the action names index, format, and map, and the description adds a conditional constraint: “map only reads explicit mapPath mapping location.” However, it does not explain when to choose index versus format, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions. This is minimum viable guidance rather than explicit routing.

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