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

The description discloses defaults and side-effect boundaries: default-disabled behavior, prerequisite server write permission, required confirmation token, and no automatic push. Since annotations are all false/empty, the description carries the full burden and does so clearly.

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?

Two dense sentences convey scope, prerequisites, confirmation, and no-push behavior with no wasted words. The most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the essential invocation conditions: what may be committed, required permission, required confirmation, and absence of auto-push. It lacks an explicit statement of return value/commit outcome, but this is not necessary for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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% and the description only partially compensates: it implies files are safe paths and references the confirmation word, but it does not explain the message parameter or how file paths should be specified. The confirmation semantics are already visible in the schema const.

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 (commit) and a specific resource (explicitly listed safe paths), and the title identifies it as a controlled Git commit. It is distinguishable from all sibling tools, which are either read-only information getters or release lifecycle operations.

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 provides clear usage context: only safe/path-limited commits, disabled by default, requires server-side write permission and the CREATE_COMMIT confirmation. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that deployment is disabled by default, is atomic, and requires a clean working tree and a confirmation word. It does not detail production effects or irreversibility, but the destructiveHint and the release-script context cover the main safety profile.

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 sentence packs the target, mechanism, and three safety preconditions with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 destructive production deployment with no output schema, the description covers what is deployed, how, and what guards exist. It is missing an explicit statement of post-call outcome or rollback behavior, and the current-main versus specified-commit wording leaves a small but real 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?

The schema already encodes commit as a 40-hex pattern and confirmation as the exact const DEPLOY_PRODUCTION; the description only restates these as 'full SHA' and 'DEPLOY_PRODUCTION confirmation word'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema and the phrase 'current main commit' slightly conflicts with the commit 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?

The description clearly identifies a deployment action to production via an atomic release script, which separates it from read-only siblings like summit_get_site_health and from summit_prepare_release. However, the title says a specified commit is released while the description says the current main commit is deployed, creating minor ambiguity about whether the commit parameter is actually honored.

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 concrete preconditions: the tool is disabled by default, requires a full SHA, a clean working tree, and the DEPLOY_PRODUCTION confirmation word. This tells an agent what must be true before calling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is established. The description adds a useful behavioral guarantee that no registrant details are returned and that results are aggregated counts and percentages, but it does not mention ordering, empty-data behavior, or data freshness.

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, dense sentence that leads with the principal output and uses a semicolon to add a relevant exclusion. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no-parameter read-only query, the description conveys the essential return information: counts and proportions per channel, and the explicit absence of personal details. There is no output schema, so a bit more structure about the response fields could be added, but the description is still adequate for an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description focuses appropriately on output semantics instead.

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 '返回' and names the exact resource: registration counts and proportions by promotion channel. The added clause '不返回任何报名人员明细' clarifies the level of aggregation and distinguishes it from detail-level queries, though it does not explicitly compare with sibling distribution 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 about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as summit_get_forum_distribution, summit_get_forum_industry_distribution, or summit_get_registration_summary. The intended use is only implied by the output description, with no exclusions or selection criteria.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and side-effect expectations. The description adds no further behavioral details beyond confirming it returns data, which is consistent with the annotations. Given the annotations provide strong coverage, the description adds limited extra transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's output without unnecessary words or redundancy. It adheres to good structural practices for a simple getter.

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 description is sufficient for a simple no-parameter getter, clearly indicating what data is returned. It lacks details on the output format or any pagination, but these are not critical for such a basic tool and could be inferred from the context. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's complexity.

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 has no parameters (empty properties in schema). The description does not need to clarify parameter meanings because there are none, and it fully aligns with the schema. This is a trivial case where the description is perfectly adequate.

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 clearly states the tool returns aggregated registration counts for forums, distinguishing it from other getter tools that focus on channels or industries. The specific mention of '六大平行论坛、特色专场及未识别论坛' makes its purpose 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., when to choose forum distribution over channel or industry distribution). The purpose is implied, but there is no direct comparison or alternative selection advice.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee that identity information is not returned, which goes beyond the annotations and confirms the tool's privacy-preserving nature.

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, concise sentence with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key limitation.

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?

While the description clarifies the data aggregation (industry distribution per forum) and privacy aspect, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., list of industries with counts, percentages) and edge cases (e.g., empty result). Since there is no output schema, this missing information could leave an agent uncertain about the exact structure of the response.

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 only parameter forumId is fully described: it is optional and omitting it returns all forums. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description aligns with the parameter's purpose without ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the tool returns the industry aggregate distribution of registrants for each parallel forum, and adds a privacy guarantee that it does not return identity information. This clearly distinguishes it from other sibling tools like summit_get_forum_distribution which likely returns overall forum metrics.

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 implies usage for obtaining industry breakdowns per forum and explicitly notes the privacy aspect, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like summit_get_registration_summary or summit_get_forum_distribution, nor does it state when to prefer this tool over them.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add non-obvious scope. It adds meaningful context by listing the fixed data categories and stating that personal registration data is not accessed, which is valuable beyond the structured 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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and content, then adds a scoping exclusion. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague 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?

For a parameterless, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it lists all five content areas returned and what is deliberately excluded. An agent can invoke it confidently without additional documentation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description usefully defines what the parameterless call returns, fully covering the operation's input 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 states a specific action ('返回') and enumerates the exact returned content: official site tech stack, Git status, production domain, quality gates, and release rules. The explicit disclaimer that it does not read personal registration data distinguishes it from registration-related siblings.

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 clearly indicates this tool provides project context and explicitly excludes personal registration data, giving a when-not signal. It does not name a sibling alternative outright, but the scope statement is enough for an agent to select it for context retrieval over registration or action tools.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds meaningful behavioral constraints beyond annotations: the output is aggregate-only and explicitly excludes names, phone numbers, emails, and WeChat IDs.

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words: the first states what statistics are returned, and the second sets the privacy boundary. Information is front-loaded and schema details are not repeated.

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 description covers the scope and privacy characteristics well, but it doesn't state the default behavior when both optional date parameters are omitted, and with no output schema, the exact response structure is left unspecified. Overall it is adequate but has minor gaps.

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%, with both dateFrom and dateTo clearly described as inclusive/exclusive ISO-8601 timestamps. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('报名汇总'), and enumerates the exact statistic families returned: cumulative, today, last hour, main forum, and data quality. It also clarifies aggregate-only output, which differentiates it from sibling distribution 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?

Usage context is implied by '只返回聚合数据' — the agent can infer this tool is for aggregate registration statistics, not raw records or distributions. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named, so selection relies on inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful detail about what components are checked, but it does not explain return format, failure behavior, thresholds, or whether live network checks are performed.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates all checked items without filler. Every word contributes meaning.

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 description is adequate for selecting and invoking a parameterless read-only health check, and the annotations cover safety. However, since there is no output schema, the description would benefit from stating what the result looks like, such as a pass/fail status per component or an overall health verdict.

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 has zero parameters and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object, so there is no parameter ambiguity. According to the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 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 '检查' (check) with concrete targets: official homepage, main KV, lecturer images, registration backend, and RELEASE flag. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle context, distributions, reviews, or release actions.

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 implies this is a health-check tool, likely used before release or deployment, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not name alternatives or contrast with sibling tools, so selection depends on inference.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it only generates a report and explicitly does not commit or deploy, reinforcing no-side-effect behavior beyond what annotations alone state.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause carries meaning: what is checked, what is produced, and what is not done.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, report-generating tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what it does, what it checks, and what it avoids. No output schema is present, but the phrase 'generates a report' sufficiently sets expectations for return behavior.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about parameters. The description compensates by explaining what the report covers, which is sufficient context for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: it confirms branch, commits, workspace, and rule-scan results, and generates a release preparation report. It explicitly differentiates itself from commit/deploy tools by saying it will not commit or deploy, making its purpose distinct among siblings.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for checking release readiness and generating a report. It explicitly excludes commmit and deployment actions, which helps route away from create_commit and deploy_release, though it does not name alternative tools or specify when to choose this over review_changes or quality_gate.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavioral boundaries by explicitly stating it will not modify files or Git state, and it enumerates what it checks. This goes beyond the annotations, clarifying the exact scope of the read-only behavior.

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 front-loads the review targets and the output, then adds the crucial negative guarantee (no file/Git modifications). Every phrase earns its place and there is no 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 zero-parameter, well-annotated read-only tool, the description adequately specifies what it checks and what it returns. The only gap is the implicit relationship to summit_run_quality_gate: the agent must infer that this tool only recommends gates while the sibling executes them.

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 has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% of nothing. Since there are no parameters to explain, baseline 4 applies; the description adds no parameter details because none are needed.

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 ('检查' / review) and concrete resources: changed files, whitespace errors, suspected secrets, database/release risks, plus the deliverable (quality gates to run). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like summit_run_quality_gate, which actually executes gates, while this one only reviews and recommends.

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 implies the tool is for pre-commit review by stating it inspects pending changes and suggests quality gates. However, it never explicitly states when to use this instead of summit_run_quality_gate, summit_prepare_release, or other siblings, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions.

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

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

Annotations already convey idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that only fixed commands are executed and arbitrary Shell input is rejected, which is important safety-relevant information beyond the 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 one tightly worded sentence with two clauses. The scope is front-loaded and the safety boundary is stated directly after, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple tool with one optional enum parameter and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete: it specifies which command categories run and explicitly rejects arbitrary input. The remaining gap is the lack of profile semantics and expected output behavior, but this is minor.

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 only parameter, profile, is not mentioned in the description at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The enum values quick/full are self-descriptive, but the description does not explain what each profile includes or how it changes the run.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it executes only the repository's fixed type-check, MCP test, and application test commands. It also explicitly excludes arbitrary Shell commands, which clearly distinguishes it from generic command-execution 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?

The description implies the tool is for running the repository's predefined quality gates, but it does not say when to prefer it over alternatives or mention sibling tools. It provides a constraint rather than active usage guidance or explicit exclusions.

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