register_threadRecord Meta foreshadowing threads with phases, statuses, dependencies, and visibility to track planted hints and resolutions across a game narrative.
注册 Meta 伏笔线程
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| scope | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| phases | Yes | ||
| status | No | ||
| depends_on | 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 full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about persistence, idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or what happens when phase/depends_on references do not resolve. The word '注册' implies a mutation but no consequences are described.
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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness; a single noun-phrase fragment provides no structure an agent can act on. Nothing is front-loaded because there is effectively no content.
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 9 parameters, nested objects, three enums, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is wholly inadequate. An agent has no way to construct a valid phases array or understand thread lifecycle semantics from this text.
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 9 parameters, including nested phase objects and three enum-bearing fields. The description adds no meaning for id, scope, phases, status, current_phase, depends_on, or visibility, leaving an agent unable to interpret the required phases structure.
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 '注册 Meta 伏笔线程' (register Meta foreshadowing thread) only marginally extends the name/title by adding the qualifier 'Meta' and the word '伏笔' (foreshadowing). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like register_foreshadowing, advance_thread_phase, or check_thread_health, and the meaning of the 'Meta' scope is left undefined.
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 the many thread-related siblings (register_foreshadowing, link_beat_to_thread, check_thread_health, advance_thread_phase). No prerequisites, ordering, or exclusion conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.