fgui_verify_document

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting and clearly discloses the key behavioral traits: read-only, no save, no reload, disk-XML default, and snapshot-only behavior when expected is absent. It doesn't cover errors or selection nuances, but for a non-mutating verifier this is strong transparency.

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 packs purpose, side effects, default behavior, and an edge-case fallback with no filler. Every clause carries meaningful information.

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 description provides a solid behavioral overview, but with six undocumented parameters and no target-selection explanation, an agent cannot reliably construct the right invocation. The presence of an output schema helps with return expectations, but the parameter semantics gap remains a significant completeness problem.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the prose only references 'expected' without explaining its shape or how the target is identified. The remaining parameters (object_id, object_name, object_path, read_xml, max_depth) are left undocumented in both schema and description, so the description barely compensates for the parameter gap.

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 clearly states the action (read-only verify), the resource (disk XML), and the side-effect boundary ('不保存、不重载'). It is unambiguous about the tool's core purpose, though it doesn't explicitly name or compare sibling tools, and 'target' is left slightly vague.

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 explicit alternatives or when-to-use versus sibling tools are given. However, the '只读' and '不保存、不重载' phrasing implies this is for non-mutating verification against disk XML, so the agent can infer the appropriate general context without strong exclusion guidance.

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