审查待提交改动

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.