生成抖音预览二维码

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the routing behavior, the workspace-only output constraint, and the passthrough options. However, it does not describe side effects, prerequisite environment state, failure modes, or what happens after the preview command succeeds.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes a distinct operational fact: the routing rule, the workspace constraint, and the pass-through options.

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 routing and output constraint are present, which is sufficient for a basic call. But given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description would be stronger if it explained the expected relationship between projectPath and expectedProjecType, the purpose of timeoutMs, and how to locate the generated QR code.

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 description adds meaning by naming small/copy/query/scene/launchFrom as pass-through official options and by linking --output and --qrcode-output to the routing behavior. But with 0% schema description coverage, it still leaves timeoutMs, qrcodeOutput format, and expectedProjecType/projectPath semantics largely implicit.

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—generating a Douyin preview QR code—and immediately gives the routing rule: minigames use tmg preview, other project types use tma preview. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like douyin_upload, douyin_audit, or douyin_compile_refresh.

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?

There is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus its siblings, and no alternatives or exclusions are named. The routing note is internal command selection, not MCP tool selection, so the usage context is only implied by the title.

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