miniapp_relevant_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool has side effects, requires specific permissions, or any limitations. The 4-tier structure is introduced but not explained, leaving uncertainty about what the tool actually does.

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 sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary details. It front-loads the core idea but is not fully self-contained, requiring the user to infer additional context.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the four tiers, output format, or how to interpret results. The tool's complexity demands a richer description.

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 71%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions 'task' which ties to query/goal/featureName. No additional parameter semantics are offered.

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 clearly states the tool outputs a 4-tier context (Core/Near/Extended/Background) for tasks, specific to miniapp engineering. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like miniapp_inspect_project or miniapp_project_map, which may also provide context.

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 implies usage for task-based context retrieval ('按任务输出') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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