review_user_level_configs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond those: it batches by offset/limit, treats skill/rules/mcp.json/hooks as untrusted, and writes results to _用户级配置.md. The report-writing mention is consistent with the tool's purpose and does not materially contradict the read-only annotation.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: scope, whitelist boundary, batching, trust assumptions, and output report. It is front-loaded with the resource being reviewed and contains no filler or repetition.

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 most actionable details: target directories, scan boundary, batching behavior, trust assumptions, and output report name. But the undocumented extra_paths parameter and the lack of explicit sibling-tool routing leave a meaningful gap for a fully informed invocation.

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 explains offset/limit as path batching and gives whitelist context, which adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, extra_paths is not described at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the meaning, format, and relationship of extra_paths to the whitelist remain unclear.

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 ('审查') and identifies a concrete resource: user/program-level AI assistant and editor configs, backed by explicit directory examples (~/.cursor, ~/.claude, /opt, etc.). It is clearly distinguishable from the more general review_scan tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool.

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 a clear scope boundary: only scan whitelisted paths that actually exist and do not traverse the whole disk. It also specifies batching via offset/limit. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative sibling tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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