Create product feature research by saving a specific question and optional unpacked JavaScript target directory; no auto-discovery of other apps.
建立产品功能研究，保存用户的具体问题和明确选择的目标。target 为可选的已解包 JavaScript 目录 绝对路径；不自动寻找其他应用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| demo | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| target | No | ||
| question | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), closed-world (openWorldHint=false) and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: target is an optional unpacked-JS-directory path and no app auto-discovery happens. It still omits idempotency, permissions, and what an existing record conflict does.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before the target qualifier, with no filler. Slightly terse relative to the number of unexplained parameters, but nothing is wasted.
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 create tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the action and the trickiest parameter (target) but leaves title and demo semantically undocumented and says nothing about the created result. Adequate but with clear gaps for a 4-parameter creation tool.
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 carries the full burden. It clarifies target (optional absolute path to an unpacked JavaScript directory) and implicitly maps question→'用户的具体问题' and target→'明确选择的目标', but gives no meaning for title, and 'demo' is never mentioned at all despite being a required boolean.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: '建立产品功能研究' (create a product feature research), plus what it persists (the user's question and selected target). An agent can identify it as the creation entry point among the research_* siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with research_update or the other create-adjacent tools.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The lone constraint '不自动寻找其他应用' is a scoping note about the target rather than a routing rule, so an agent gets no signal on when to prefer this over research_update or research_import_document.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.