Esq Validate Package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds that the default built-in validator follows the same rules as the official esq.py, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 states the purpose and default behavior with no redundant text. Every clause earns 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?

The tool is simple, has a full input schema and an output schema, so return values and parameters are covered elsewhere. However, with no annotations and no usage context, the description leaves gaps around when to choose it and its read-only/safety profile.

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%, so the two parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 (校验) and resource (ESQ 包), making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as esq_build_package or esq_upload_and_publish, so it stops short of full 5-level 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?

No statement of when to use this tool instead of building, uploading, parsing, or hot-word siblings, and no prerequisites. It only describes a default validator behavior, not selection context.

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