检查官网健康状态

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.