构建抖音项目 NPM

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the routing behavior and the non-upload/audit boundary, but it does not disclose side effects such as project file mutations, build output generation, success/failure behavior, or whether a local environment must be prepared.

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 sentence that immediately fronts the routing rule and the exclusion boundary. There is no redundant filler or repetition of the tool name/title.

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?

The core purpose and routing are clear, but the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and three parameter descriptions at 0% coverage. The description does not explain return values, command execution behavior, or the meaning of timeoutMs and projectPath, so an agent still has to infer important invocation details.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain the parameters. It only indirectly clarifies expectedProjectType through the minigame/others routing. timeoutMs and projectPath are left entirely unexplained, including their purpose, defaults, and whether they are optional at runtime.

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 clearly states a specific action (build NPM) and a routing rule based on project type (minigame vs. others). It also explicitly excludes upload and audit, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like douyin_upload and douyin_audit.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: minigame projects should use tmg build-npm, others should use tma build-npm. It also states what the tool does not do (upload or audit), helping an agent choose a sibling tool when those actions are needed.

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