vod_devkit_info

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it declares read-only behavior (no side effects) and that the tool is a permanently available core-pack member, which is important availability context. It also enumerates what comes back (version, commitSHA, host identity, install info). It doesn't describe the structure or format of that data, but no output schema exists and the content is at least named.

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 line that front-loads the purpose and then the mode (read-only, always resident) and the returned contents. Nothing is redundant. The parenthetical phrase 'core pack 常驻' is slightly jargon-heavy for an outside agent, but it is dense with useful meaning rather than filler.

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?

This is a trivial, zero-parameter, side-effect-free introspection tool, and the description covers mode, availability, and the categories of data returned. Without an output schema it could say a bit more about the shape of 'install info', but an agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-param tool applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless self-report by framing it as the plugin's own account.

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 identifies a specific resource: the plugin's own metadata (version, commit SHA, host identity, install info), and labels it read-only. Siblings (vod_submit_voices, vod_list_submitted, vod_auth_status) are clearly different operations, so an agent can distinguish it. The verb is implicit ('自述' = it describes itself), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

It states the tool is read-only and always resident in the core pack, which implies the agent can call it at any time for diagnostics. However, it never says when to prefer this over vod_auth_status, or under what conditions an agent should look up version/host info at all. Usage is inferable but not instructed.

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