exists

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

With no annotations provided, the description must stand alone. It does not disclose whether the tool returns a boolean, throws an error on non-existence, or how it handles different path types. This is a significant gap for a check tool.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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 the simplicity of the tool and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about path semantics, typical use cases, or relationship to sibling tools, making it incomplete for a fully self-sufficient agent.

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 description has 0% schema coverage and does not explain the required 'path' parameter beyond the word 'file or directory'. It omits important details like path format (absolute/relative), accepted URL patterns, or edge case behavior.

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 the specific verb '检查' (check) and resource '文件或目录' (file/directory), clearly stating it verifies existence. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_files (which lists) or is_dir (which checks directory type).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_file_info or is_dir. It only states the basic function, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage context.

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