预览用户技能归档

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by stating no move is performed and by disclosing a domain constraint the annotations cannot express: system and plugin content cannot be archived. It does not say what happens when such content is targeted (silent omission vs. error).

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, zero filler, with the read-only scope stated first and the exclusion rule second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read-only tool this is nearly adequate, but with no output schema the agent is left guessing what the '范围与影响' preview actually returns, and the required skillId format/derivation is entirely undocumented.

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 single parameter skillId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The schema pattern ^[0-9a-f]{64}$ hints at a SHA-256 hex hash, but the description adds no meaning about what the ID identifies or how to obtain it, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb (只读预览) plus resource (用户技能目录归档) and explicitly says it does not execute the move, which separates it from execution siblings like execute_skill_plan and from the different preview_skill_restore. It stops short of naming the sibling it pairs with, so an agent must infer the archive/restore split from the wording.

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 negation '不执行移动' implies this is the dry-run step before a real archive operation, but the description never states when to call it versus execute_skill_plan or preview_skill_restore. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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