Get Writing Bootstrap

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

Without annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It says it resolves the active project and returns resources and a summary, but doesn't disclose whether it mutates state (it seems read-only), what 'Resources' are, what the summary contains, or the output format. No permissions, rate limits, or side effects are mentioned.

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, efficient sentence with no waste, front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity contributes to the lack of detail.

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 tool that apparently resolves project context and returns multiple artifacts, the description is too sparse. With no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of what '写作前必读 Resources' or the summary entail, an agent lacks sufficient information to use it correctly.

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%, with project_id fully described ('省略则自动发现'). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('解析活动项目' and '返回...Resources 与摘要'), which is more specific than a tautology. But it doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like get_project or discover_projects, and the notion of '写作前必读 Resources' is unusual and undefined, leaving the exact purpose somewhat vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't explain when to provide project_id (vs. auto-discovery), or how it relates to get_project, discover_projects, or set_active_project. The only hint is in the schema parameter description, not the tool description.

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