review_external_paths

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description says the tool '写入报告' (writes into a report), which implies a side effect beyond reading. This directly contradicts the read-only annotation. The description also does not clarify whether this report write is persistent or merely part of the response, so the behavior is misleading.

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 dense sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the primary listing action. However, the three-part behavior (scan, write report, provide prompt) is packed into one long clause, and splitting it would improve readability without adding length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details do not need to be in the description, and the annotations cover safety. Still, the contradiction between read-only annotations and the report-writing behavior leaves an unresolved gap, and the description does not say how the three-choice prompt is determined or when not to use this tool. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the input schema already covers the full parameter surface. Following the 0-params baseline, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics.

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 states a specific action: list references in the current repository that point to other repositories, folders, environment-variable paths, or git addresses. It also clarifies the expected outputs: writing a report and providing a three-choice prompt that must be relayed verbatim. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from broader siblings like review_scan or review_secrets_inventory.

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 gives clear context for when this tool applies: reviewing the current repository's external path references. It also provides an explicit usage instruction: the three-choice prompt must be passed to the user verbatim. It does not name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is clear enough to guide selection.

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