触发 IDE 编译或刷新

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema: the action is performed via IDE workbench interaction rather than a simple command, the shortcut path is a fallback, and projectPath binds the operation to a specific IDE instance. However, with no annotations provided, the description still leaves key behaviors unexplained such as side effects of compile/refresh or what response/error conditions to expect.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the preferred method, provides a fallback strategy, and includes a key parameter hint about multi-IDE binding. Every sentence earns its place.

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 ive parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits mode semantics, timeout behavior, prerequisites such as project opening or IDE running state, and what result or error the agent should expect after triggering compile/refresh.

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 must compensate, but it only clarifies projectPath and indirectly hints at shortcut usage. mode, shortcut values, timeoutMs, and useShortcut are left undocumented, leaving the agent to guess their semantics from the schema alone.

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 identifies the action as triggering IDE compile/refresh and specifies the mechanism (workbench debug page click or shortcut). It does not explicitly differentiate among sibling tools such as douyin_build_npm or douyin_preview, but the verb and resource are concrete enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 provides an internal preference order: prefer clicking compile/refresh in the IDE workbench, and use a reliable shortcut as a fallback. It also explains when projectPath is useful (multiple IDE instances), but it does not state when this tool should be selected over sibling tools or when it should not be used.

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