check_tokens

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the core behavior (validating tokens) and that it is a pre-check, but it does not disclose return semantics, failure behavior, or whether it makes external network calls. Not contradictory, but minimal beyond the obvious.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and adds the key usage context. There is zero 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?

The tool is simple with only two documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, status, error). An agent knows what it validates and when to call it, but not how to interpret the result, which is a notable 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 100%: both token_gh and token_gt are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax details for the parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 '验证' (validate) with clear resources: GitHub and GitCode access tokens. It also describes the tool as a pre-check for all upload operations, which clearly sets it apart from the sibling tools that perform uploads, config, or asset management.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: before all upload operations ('所有上传操作的前置检查'). It does not name alternatives or give when-not conditions, but no sibling tool performs token validation, so the usage context is clear without exclusions.

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