工程连接状态

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 不返回凭据 (credentials are not returned) — but says nothing about latency, freshness, or what happens when no project is connected.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'no credentials returned' clause earns its place, though the sentence is dense enough that the parameter behavior is lost entirely.

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 read-only status tool with no output schema, the description does outline the returned information (identity, compatibility, editor state) and a negative guarantee. However, the optional projectId is left undefined, so an agent cannot tell whether to supply it or what default applies.

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% for the single projectId parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does not compensate. It never explains what projectId means, whether omitting it (required count is 0) returns the default connected project, or how multiple connections are resolved.

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 uses a concrete verb (查看) plus a specific resource set: backend identity, compatibility, and editor status of the connected project. It is clearly distinguishable from write-side siblings like cocos_project_connect and cocos_project_disconnect, though it does not name any sibling to route against.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternatives (e.g. cocos_instances or cocos_operation_query). The agent must infer from the purpose sentence alone that this is a read-only pre-flight/health check.

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