project_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a non-building, diagnostic reporting tool ('检查/报告'), but it does not state side effects, permissions, failure behavior, or the exact format of the report. The '是否像' phrase adds useful context that it surveys resemblance rather than guaranteeing functionality.

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 one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and target, then states what will be reported, so every part earns its place.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter status tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete: it names the input, the check being performed, and the artifacts reported. The residual gaps are the absence of explicit return-structure details and any statement about non-matching or error cases.

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 schema has one required string, projectDir, with no schema descriptions (0% coverage). The description refers to '目录' (directory), which maps to projectDir and adds the meaning that the argument is a directory path. It does not explain path format or requirements, but for a single self-named parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 specific verb+resource ('检查目录' / 'check directory') and states the goal: determining whether the directory resembles a genshin-ts project and reporting package/config/dist artifacts. This makes it distinct from siblings like scaffold_project or compile_project, which are clearly not inspection tools.

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?

Usage is implied: an agent should call this when it needs to verify a directory's genshin-ts-likeness and see its build artifacts. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing against siblings such as diagnose, but the purpose is enough to suggest the primary scenario.

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