查看抖音项目包体积

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It states the tool invokes an official command and that '--json 输出结构化结果' (--json outputs structured results), which reveals output behavior. However, it does not mention side effects, failure modes, prerequisites, or whether the operation is read-only, leaving some ambiguity.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the main behavior, then adds the useful --json detail and the intended use case. Every clause earns its place with no repetition of the title or verbosity.

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 low-complexity tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core action and a use case. However, it leaves gaps around how projectPath behaves, what the default (non-JSON) output looks like, and whether prior environment checks or project opening are required.

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 only adds meaning for the 'json' parameter via '--json 输出结构化结果'. The 'projectPath' and 'timeoutMs' parameters are left unexplained, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: '调用官方 tma project-size 输出包体积信息' (call the official tma project-size to output package size info). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like douyin_check_environment and douyin_open_project by referencing the actual command.

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 a concrete use context: '上传/提审前核对包体积用' (for checking package size before upload/submission). It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the timing and purpose are clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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