validate_branch_graphValidates your game's branch graph to detect dead ends, broken edges, unreachable nodes, and merge points. Use it to catch narrative structure errors before runtime.
校验分支图（死胡同/断边/不可达/汇合点）
| 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 full burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it mutates or repairs the graph, what permissions are needed, or what form the reported issues take. The parenthetical hints at what is checked but nothing about behavior or outcome.
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 compact line with the core action front-loaded and the check categories appended efficiently. No waste, though the brevity is under-specification rather than true density.
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 validation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing about the return value (issue list? boolean?), severity reporting, and the project scope. It names what is checked but not enough to invoke or interpret results 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% and the single parameter (project_id) is undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it never clarifies scope, format, or whether the project must be active. One undocumented parameter is left entirely ambiguous.
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+resource: validate the branch graph, and the parenthetical enumerates the four check categories (dead ends, broken edges, unreachable nodes, merge points), which separates it from sibling validators like validate_project or check_thread_health. It is clear enough to select without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.
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 this validation should be run, what prerequisite state the graph must be in, or how it relates to siblings such as validate_project, check_pool_health, or check_timeline. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.