查询小游戏最新已发布版本

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying command (official tmg version) and the important supported:false behavior for miniapp, but it does not discuss side effects, authentication needs, or successful response details. The query intent is clear, though not all edge behavior is disclosed.

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 in the first clause, and the tma limitation follows immediately. Every sentence adds unique information with no filler or repetition.

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 tool is relatively simple and all parameters are optional, but there is no output schema and no parameter documentation. The description explains why and when to use the tool and mentions the miniapp unsupported behavior, but leaves out expected return format for successful calls and how parameters affect invocation.

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 does not mention timeoutMs or projectPath. It does partially help with expectedProjectType by distinguishing '小游戏' from '小程序端 tma', but it never explicitly maps these concepts to the enum values minigame/miniapp.

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 action and resource: '调用官方 tmg version 查询最新已发布版本号'. It also distinguishes minigame from miniapp by noting that tma has no version command, which helps separate this tool from siblings like douyin_tmg_check and douyin_upload.

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 gives explicit usage context: '上传/提审前核对用', meaning it should be used to verify the latest version before upload or review submission. It also clearly states the miniapp exclusion: '小程序端 tma 无 version 命令', so an agent knows not to use it for miniapp projects.

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