准备 AI Coop 侧栏

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this performs some non-destructive write. The description adds the key behavioral fact that the tool only prepares a page and returns a URL rather than opening a panel, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not say whether the prepared page persists or how long the URL is valid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, followed by per-client routing and the explicit non-behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the return value (URL), the client-specific next step, and the side-effect boundary. The only residual gap is the unexplained primary_agent enum, which is more a schema/documentation issue than a description omission.

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 coverage is 50%: workspace is documented in the schema, but primary_agent (enum auto/codex/claude) has no schema description. The description mentions Codex and Claude desktop usage context, which loosely hints at what primary_agent selects, but never explains the parameter or the 'auto' default directly, so it only partially compensates.

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 action and resource: it prepares a local collaboration control page for the current workspace and returns a URL. It explicitly negates the obvious confusion ('此工具本身不会打开面板'), which separates it from panel-opening tools and makes its scope unambiguous.

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?

Gives explicit routing: Codex should open the returned URL with open_in_codex in the right panel, Claude desktop should use the built-in browser panel preview_start. It also states what this tool does NOT do, so the agent knows the handoff point.

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