register_foreshadowingRegister a narrative foreshadowing thread with its ID, title, and phases to track planted hints, status changes, and resolution across game story scopes.
register_thread 别名：登记伏笔线程
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| scope | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| phases | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| visibility | No | ||
| current_phase | 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 burden — and it discloses nothing. For a write/registration tool with 8 parameters and no safety profile, the absence of any statement about persistence, scope semantics, side effects, or validation behavior is a severe gap.
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?
It is short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness — a single alias phrase where a full definition is needed. There is no structure to front-load because nothing substantive is stated.
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 8 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and nested phase objects with their own enums, the definition is nowhere near complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 0% across 8 parameters (including three enums: scope, status/phase status, visibility). The description supplies no meaning for any of them, not even for the required id/title/phases trio.
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 only identifies the tool as an alias of register_thread and restates the name in Chinese ('登记伏笔线程'), so the operation is inferable but never described in terms of what it actually does. It does provide one genuinely useful routing signal — that this is the same operation as register_thread — which is more than a pure tautology.
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 alias note weakly implies 'use this as an equivalent to register_thread', but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or preference between the two identically-behaving tools. An agent still has to guess whether to call this or register_thread.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.