构建任务

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as side effects, filtering semantics, pagination, or whether it includes all tasks or only active ones. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential action and scope.

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 simple read-only list tool with one required parameter, the description is minimally viable, but it omits information about the return value or output structure, especially since no output schema exists. It gives an agent just enough to understand the purpose, but not enough to fully predict what will be returned.

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 description barely compensates. It implies that projectId identifies the project whose build tasks are listed, but it does not explain how to obtain a valid projectId, what format is expected, or any additional meaning beyond the parameter name.

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 '列出工程的构建任务' states a specific verb (list) and resource (the project's build tasks), and the project scope is clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like cocos_build_start or cocos_build_status, but the list action is evident from the wording.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cocos_build_status, cocos_build_logs, or cocos_build_cancel. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred or what prerequisites exist.

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