context_describe

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the read-only, closed-world safety profile. The description adds that the result contains '独立正文' and a bound read baseline, but does not explain what that baseline is, how it is derived, or whether any state is assumed. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentence and front-loads the primary operation. However, the trailing jargon about '独立正文' and '读取基线' is not defined, so those parts are concise but not fully self-explanatory.

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?

Although an output schema exists and may document return shape, the description omits parameter semantics, usage context, and sibling routing. For a tool with two parameters and a 0% schema coverage, this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly references the plugin parameter and says nothing about the scope parameter, its default value, or valid inputs. An agent cannot confidently determine what values to supply for scope.

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 names a specific action ('列出' / list) against a specific resource ('选定 Plugin 的 Skill 与配套说明') and states that it returns text plus a read baseline. However, the phrases '独立正文' and '绑定的读取基线' are domain jargon that weaken clarity, and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling context tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use context_describe versus context_preview, context_apply, or context_preview_remove. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name and annotations alone.

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