检查 AI Coop 连接

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful constraint that no model task is launched, reinforcing read-only behavior, but says nothing about what the checks report, how failures surface, or whether it touches the filesystem.

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 listing the checked items first and the non-behavior last — well front-loaded with no filler. It is a touch terse given no return-value information, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description would ideally hint at what the health check returns (per-component status, errors). It names what is checked but not what an agent gets back, leaving a moderate gap for a diagnostic tool.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents workspace including its dynamic per-chat semantics. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds nothing about the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (检查/check) with four named resources (Codex/Claude CLI, workspace, run directory, write mode), which is far more specific than a generic 'health check'. It implicitly separates itself from the start_* workflow siblings by scoping to diagnostics, though it never names an alternative.

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 clause '不启动模型任务' implies this is a pre-flight/diagnostic call rather than an execution call, which is useful routing context. However it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not distinguish itself from the similarly diagnostic project_status sibling.

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