Content
76%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is highly actionable with complete JSON examples and return schemas for all seven modes, and is well structured. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit validation/verification checkpoint for the destructive overwrite and batch replace_all workflows.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation step after destructive/batch updates, e.g. re-read the doc (or query task_id for async) and verify the change before considering it done.
Generalize the whiteboard repair fix-retry loop into a documented validate → fix → re-submit pattern for all update modes.
Trim the repeated selection-method explanations in the example sections by pointing back to the 定位方式 section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is example-driven and practical with little concept padding, though the selection-method explanations recur across several example sections and could be tightened slightly. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Every mode ships a copy-paste-ready JSON request payload plus full success/error return schemas, covering the common cases concretely. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Destructive and batch operations (overwrite, replace_all) carry warnings but lack an explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoint; only the whiteboard-repair case offers a fix-retry loop, so the cap at 3 applies. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is well organized into clear sections (定位方式, 可选参数, 返回值, 使用示例, 最佳实践) with no nested references and navigation-friendly headers, though all material is inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |