识别抖音项目身份

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the source of truth (IDE state and logged-in app metadata) and gives a concrete structured error taxonomy with conditions for each failure mode. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the diagnostic verb '判断/识别' and evidence-based wording imply a read-only check.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears first, the evidentiary caveat second, and the error codes are appended as a concise list. Every sentence contributes and there is no redundant prose.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole contract. It covers the tool's inputs sources and failure modes, but it never specifies the shape of a successful result and leaves timeoutMs and projectPath unexplained. This is adequate for a simple identity check but has clear completeness gaps.

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. It indirectly informs expectedAppid and expectedProjectType through the APPID_MISMATCH and PROJECT_TYPE_MISMATCH errors, but timeoutMs and projectPath are completely undocumented anywhere, leaving two of four parameters without usable semantics.

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 names the exact object ('项目身份') and the specific attributes it determines: project type, actual AppID, and permission status. It also states the evidence source (IDE actual state / logged-in app metadata) and clarifies that file structure is only auxiliary, which distinguishes this tool from the related Douyin checking and opening tools.

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 implies the tool is used to verify the real on-device project identity and permission state, and that file-structure evidence alone is not reliable. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when this tool should be preferred over siblings such as douyin_check_environment or douyin_open_project.

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