miniapp_understand_feature_impact

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions analysis of impacts but does not state side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is read-only. The description is too vague to understand behavioral traits.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with three parameters, though it could benefit from slight structuring.

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?

Given the complexity of analyzing impacts across multiple dimensions (pages, cloud functions, etc.) and the absence of an output schema, the description does not convey what the analysis produces. The agent is left uninformed about the tool's output format or structure.

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 67%. The description adds value for featureName by providing concrete examples (客户成片展示等) and for limit by stating the default and interpretation (命中文件). This goes beyond the schema, though projectPath lacks any description.

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 verb 'analyze' and the resource 'feature name', listing specific impact areas (pages, cloud functions, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like miniapp_understand_file_role, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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 usage context, when-not to use, or alternatives are provided. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent without guidance on choosing this tool over siblings.

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