MCP Feedback Enhanced

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the interactive nature ('交互式界面'), input types (text and images), and timeout behavior. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this blocks execution, what happens on timeout, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds value but leaves significant gaps for a tool that creates user interfaces.

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 well-structured with purpose first, then usage guidelines, followed by parameter and return value sections. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. The only minor inefficiency is repeating parameter names that are already documented in the schema, but overall it's concise and front-loaded with essential information.

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?

Given the tool's interactive nature and 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage plus an output schema, the description provides reasonable completeness. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. The main gap is insufficient behavioral transparency for a UI tool, but with output schema handling return values, the description covers most essential aspects adequately.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description lists the parameters but adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema. It mentions '用于上下文定位' (for context positioning) for project_directory and '供用户参考' (for user reference) for summary, which provides slight additional context. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: '通过 Web 界面收集用户输入' (collect user input through a web interface) and specifies it's for '获取用户的文字输入和图片附件' (obtaining user text input and image attachments). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_system_info' by focusing on user input collection rather than system information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tool in the description text itself.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: '当需要用户确认或额外指导时可调用此工具' (can be called when user confirmation or additional guidance is needed). This gives practical guidance about appropriate use cases. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention explicit alternatives beyond the implied distinction from the sibling tool.

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