拼多多环境检查

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 discloses which components are verified (Chrome debug port, tab, login state, request channel), implying a read-only diagnostic operation. However, it does not state the output format, whether the check can also repair issues, or how results are interpreted — leaving the agent to guess what a 'success' or 'failure' response looks like.

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 efficient sentences with zero filler. The core purpose (what components are checked) is front-loaded, followed immediately by the actionable usage directive. Every sentence earns its place and the structure supports quick agent parsing.

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 (single optional param, no annotations, no output schema). The description covers purpose and usage trigger well, but omits what the check returns or how results should be interpreted — a notable gap for a diagnostic tool since an agent needs to know how to read the outcome to decide next steps. Minor but real.

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 100% — the single optional 'shop' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its semantics (shop name key for config/shops.json, omitted = default shop). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies correctly.

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 specifies a clear verb ('检查' / check) and specific resources: Chrome debug port connection, mms.pinduoduo.com tab, login state, and in-page request channel. It is a health/diagnostic tool clearly distinguishable from all sibling data-retrieval tools (reviews, chat, goods, promotion), so an agent can immediately recognize it as the environment pre-flight check.

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 explicit trigger condition: '其他工具报错时先调这个' (when other tools report errors, call this first). This is clear when-to-use guidance that positions it as a first-line diagnostic. It does not name a specific alternative or state when NOT to use it, but for a diagnostic tool the trigger is well-defined enough to route correct selection.

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