运行时实例

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the operation is safe. The description adds the useful qualifiers 'connected' and 'development', but it does not reveal what the returned data looks like or how connection state is determined. 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation and resource efficiently, adding the key qualifiers 'connected' and 'development' without extraneous detail.

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 listing tool with one parameterستان completeness is adequate, but the description leaves projectId semantics unexplained and fails to distinguish this tool from cocos_instances. There is also no output schema or return-value description, so an agent only receives minimal context.

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?

The only parameter, projectId, has no schema description (0% coverage), and the tool description does not explain its meaning, expected format, or how to obtain it. Because schema coverage is low, the description should compensate, but it provides no parameter-level guidance.

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 '列出已连接的开发运行实例' clearly states a specific action (listing) and a specific resource (connected development runtime instances). It is distinct from generic names like cocos_instances, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from that sibling tool.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus cocos_instances or other instance-related tools. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool recommendations, so the agent must infer the usage context from the tool name and description alone.

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