获取项目信息

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, safety, and failure modes. It only says 'get' information and lists return fields; it does not state that the operation is read-only, requires no modifications, or may fail on invalid paths. This leaves behavioral expectations ambiguous for an unannotated tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and then lists two concrete usage scenarios in bullet form. Every sentence contributes actionable information with no filler or redundancy.

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 one-parameter get-info tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return content and typical call context. It lacks explicit failure-mode or side-effect notes, which would matter more for mutation tools; this gap is minor here.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter projectRoot, which already includes a clear description of the path. The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so the schema alone does the heavy lifting; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action (获取项目的基本信息 – get basic project info) and lists the exact fields returned (name, type with enum, SVN status). It is unmistakably a read/info tool, and the sibling build* tools make the contrast obvious even without naming them.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are given: 'before packaging to confirm project type' and 'check if project has SVN version info'. This provides clear context on when to call it. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the listed use cases naturally route away from the build tools, so a 4 is warranted.

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