项目详情

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read. The description adds value by naming the categories of data returned (phases, deliverables, expenses, transactions), but says nothing about authorization needs, missing-project behavior, or response shape beyond that list.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and scope before the parenthetical payload list. Nothing is redundant, though the parenthetical could be trimmed if the return categories were less important.

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 output schema and no parameter documentation, the description partially compensates by enumerating the main content of the response. For a simple one-parameter read, this is nearly sufficient; only the shape of the response and the error case remain unstated.

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 is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry its meaning. 按 ID does establish that the parameter is a project identifier, but it adds no format, source, or example detail beyond that minimal clarification.

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 uses a specific verb (获取, "get") on a specific resource (项目, "project") and enumerates the payload (阶段、交付物、花费与流水 — phases, deliverables, expenses, transactions). This clearly distinguishes it from project.list, which returns a collection rather than one project's full record.

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 phrase 按 ID ("by ID") implies that the tool is used when a single project's details are needed, and the required id parameter reinforces this. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over project.list or budget.get, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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