检查抖音 IDE 环境

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds a useful non-goal ('不读取源码内容' – does not read source code), implying a read-only intent, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool has side effects, network calls, or what happens on failure. A 3 reflects partial transparency.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and ends with a clarifying boundary. There is no redundant text, and every clause contributes 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves meaningful gaps: it does not explain expected output or return behavior, does not describe optional parameters, and does not state when this check should be run relative to sibling tools. The core function is clear, but the operational context is incomplete.

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%, and the description does not explain timeoutMs or projectPath. The phrase '当前项目' weakly suggests projectPath, and timeoutMs is inferable from its name alone, but the description adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the schema's bare names and types.

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 verb ('检查' / check) and a specific resource scope: official tt-ide-cli, Douyin developer tools, current project, and local debug interface status. It distinguishes itself from sibling actions like open/build/preview/upload by being an environment diagnostics tool.

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 tells what is checked but not when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions or prerequisites. The usage context is only implied as a preflight diagnostic step, with no explicit exclusions or routing to sibling tools.

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