检查小游戏 CLI（tmg）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a status/read operation and explains the underlying protocol behavior (tmg invoking IDE via mini-game protocol). However, it does not explicitly state side-effect-free behavior, return format, or behavior when the CLI is missing/logged out, which would add useful behavioral context.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the protocol distinction is added as a compact clarifier.

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 simple check tool, the description covers the main purpose and protocol context. But with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented optional parameter, the agent is left without information on return values, possible states, or how to interpret the check results. It is minimally adequate but has clear 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?

The single parameter timeoutMs has no schema description (0% schema description coverage), and the description never mentions it. Since coverage is very low, the description must explain parameter semantics, but it remains silent. Thus no meaning is added beyond the bare parameter name.

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 states a specific verb ('检查' / check), a specific resource ('tt-minigame-ide-cli（tmg 2.x）'), and the exact scope of the check (installation, version, login status). It also distinguishes tmg from tma by protocol, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools without opening their schemas.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: checking the dedicated mini-game CLI. The note that tmg uses the mini-game protocol versus tma's mini-program protocol provides a decision criterion, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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