Inspect a Conversation Branch workspace to identify orphan branch directories, missing PROMPT.md files, and archive gaps, enabling quick structural health checks.
体检工作区结构（只读）：报告孤儿分支目录、缺失 PROMPT.md、归档缺失等问题
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | Yes | Conversation Branch 工作区根目录 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| info | No | ||
| root | Yes | ||
| problems | Yes | ||
| warnings | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '（只读）'. It adds useful behavioral context by naming the exact categories of issues reported: orphan branch directories, missing PROMPT.md, and missing archives. No contradiction with annotations.
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 compact sentence with the read-only nature and purpose front-loaded, followed by concrete examples of what the tool reports. Every part earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.
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 low-complexity, one-parameter read-only tool with output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is essentially complete. The only minor gap is the trailing '等问题' ('etc.'), which leaves the full set of checks imprecisely bounded, but this is a small omission given the output schema exists.
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 parameter 'root' is fully documented in the schema with 'Conversation Branch 工作区根目录', so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add extra detail about the parameter beyond connecting it to the workspace being checked, which is acceptable but not additive.
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 ('体检'/'check') and resource ('工作区结构'/'workspace structure'), and lists concrete checks: orphan branch directories, missing PROMPT.md, and archive issues. This clearly distinguishes it from operation-oriented siblings like cb_rename, cb_checkout, and cb_discard.
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 makes the intended use clear—audit the workspace structure for consistency issues—but it does not explicitly state when to choose cb_check over cb_status, cb_diff, or cb_compare, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.