Package PLC project source and configs into a ZIP with SHA256/CRC32 manifest, excluding stale build artifacts for clean delivery.
打包源码与配置（排除派生表/陈旧编译结果），输出 ZIP 与 SHA256/CRC32 清单。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| out_zip | Yes | 输出 ZIP 路径（必须不存在） | |
| project | Yes | 工程目录 | |
| include_stale | No | 是否包含失效缓存/陈旧编译产物（默认排除） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behaviors such as excluding derived tables/stale compilation results and producing a hash manifest. However, it does not mention whether the source tree is modified, whether existing files are overwritten, or any side effects beyond creating the ZIP.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose, then adds the key exclusions and output format in parentheses. Every element is meaningful and there is no redundant wording.
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?
Given the moderate complexity, the description sufficiently explains the tool's output (ZIP plus SHA256/CRC32 manifest) and its core exclusion policy. It does not spell out the full manifest contents or detailed handling of stale artifacts, but the essentials needed to invoke and interpret the result are present.
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 input schema already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, including include_stale's default behavior. The tool description adds little beyond restating the exclusion behavior that is already present in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific action ('packages source code and configuration') and the concrete deliverables (a ZIP archive and a SHA256/CRC32 manifest). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like project_inspect or native_compile_copy, which serve different purposes.
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 clarifies what is included and excluded during packaging, giving clear operational context. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the packaging role is distinct enough that the usage context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.