estimate_branching_factorEstimate branch paths and soft/hard branch counts for a game narrative project using its project ID to assess story complexity.
粗算分支路径数与软硬分支量
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. The word 'roughly' hints that the result is an approximation rather than an exact count, which is genuinely useful, but nothing is said about cost, side effects, auth requirements, or what the estimate is based on.
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 one short fragment with no structure. This is under-specification rather than conciseness: there is no wasted sentence, but there is also no front-loaded purpose statement or scope to anchor the agent.
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 annotations, no output schema, an undocumented parameter, and undefined jargon, the definition leaves too much unstated for an estimation tool in a crowded sibling set. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently.
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% for the single parameter project_id, and the description adds no information about it (e.g., whether it is required, what happens when omitted, or whether it defaults to the active project). The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 fragment names an action ('roughly estimate') and a resource ('branch path count and soft/hard branch volume'), which is more than a restatement of the title. However, 'soft/hard branch volume' is undefined domain jargon, so an agent cannot be fully certain what is computed. It does contrast implicitly with siblings like validate_branch_graph or simulate_path, but only weakly.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus validate_branch_graph, simulate_path, or add_branch_edge. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing cues of any kind.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.