用小游戏协议打开抖音小游戏工程

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the whitelist requirement, the protocol difference from `tma`, the full-mode behavior, and the returned CLI output and IDE window status. It does not cover side effects or prerequisites such as login/auth, but the core behavioral traits are transparent.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core operation and then adds the differentiating protocol detail and return value. Every clause adds value, with no redundancy.

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 description captures the operation, output, and an important constraint, but it lacks parameter semantics and explicit usage routing. Given that all 5 parameters are optional and there is no output schema, an agent would benefit from more detail about what each parameter means and when to supply it.

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?

There are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It only hints at the `mode` parameter by mentioning 'full mode' and does not explain `projectPath`, `timeoutMs`, `expectedAppid`, or `expectedProjectType`. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the agent is left without concrete guidance.

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 verb and resource: it invokes the official minigame CLI `tmg open` to open whitelisted projects in full mode. It also explicitly differentiates this from the `tma` miniapp protocol, making the tool's purpose and scope unmistakable.

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: the IDE should handle the project as a minigame rather than a miniapp, which implies the intended use case. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name sibling tools like douyin_open_project as alternatives, but the protocol distinction provides meaningful guidance.

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