mkt_value_artifact

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does declare the operation is read-only, which is useful, but says nothing about what lint reports (errors vs warnings, pass/fail), what render produces, or whether rendering has side effects or output limits. For a two-mode tool with no output schema, this is a significant disclosure gap.

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 compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the action enum at the end. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness is partly under-specification given a nested object parameter.

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 a free-form nested object parameter, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain artifact shape and what render returns. Neither is covered, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call from this definition alone.

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%, and 'artifact' is an unconstrained nested object, so the schema explains almost nothing. The description's artifact-kind list adds a little semantic framing, but it does not describe the artifact's internal structure, required fields, or what each action expects to receive. The action enum is merely repeated from the schema.

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 gives a specific verb pair (validate/lint and render) on a named resource (value artifact), and enumerates the artifact kinds it handles (tutorials, samples, tests, templates, comparisons, real cases). It also restates the action enum, so an agent can tell it is a two-mode validator/renderer rather than a search or scoring tool. '价值资产' remains somewhat abstract, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 never says when to pick lint versus render, and it does not distinguish this tool from plausibly overlapping siblings such as mkt_plan_lint, mkt_voice_lint, mkt_templates, or mkt_scorecard. Only the '只读' (read-only) framing hints at usage context; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.

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