Retrieves the starting template, writing rules, and metadata for a document type, enabling correct documentation structure before writing. If the type is unknown, lists all available types.
返回某文档类型的起始模板（template.md）+ 撰写规范（writing.md）+ 元数据（label、contextSource）。写这类文档前先调一次。未知类型时错误信息里列出全部可用类型
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dir | No | 覆盖默认工作目录（项目所在父目录）；相对路径按当前工作目录解析；缺省用 PROTOFLOW_HOME 或启动时的 cwd | |
| kind | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | 项目 id（同时也是项目文件夹名） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose useful behavior: the exact return contents, the instruction to call before writing, and the error behavior for unknown types. It does not explicitly state there are no side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by '返回'.
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 sentences pack the return contents, usage timing, and error behavior with no filler. The most decision-relevant information 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 simple retrieval tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and interpret the result: what is returned, when to call it, and how unknown input is handled. A fuller return structure would be nice but is not essential.
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 describes projectId and dir; kind is undocumented. The description partially compensates by clarifying that kind is the document type and that unknown values produce an error listing valid types, but it adds nothing about projectId or dir beyond the schema.
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 verb ('返回') and a specific resource: the starting template, writing guidelines, and metadata for a document type. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like create_doc or build_doc, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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?
'写这类文档前先调一次' gives a clear, actionable precondition for use. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, 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.