Retrieve a subject's linked design context: higher-level abstractions, concrete implementations, the problem it solves, and related concepts from a bidirectional design tree.
从设计树/双向关系图中取出某个主题的关联视图。
可以看到：
上位设计：当前主题往上的抽象
具体实现：当前主题往下的落地方式
逆向问题：当前主题解决什么问题
相关概念：旁边还有什么值得看
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| subject | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context by describing the four relationship categories the view surfaces (upper design, implementation, reverse question, related concepts), which is beyond what the bare schema tells you. However it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, or how depth affects traversal.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight four-item bullet list of what the view contains. Well structured with little waste, though the bullets describe output rather than helping an agent decide when to call it.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must be self-sufficient. It covers the conceptual shape of the result via the four categories but omits depth semantics and any return-format detail, leaving moderate gaps for a tool whose only real knob is traversal depth.
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 0% and there are 2 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only weakly implies the 'subject' input via '某个主题' and gives no meaning at all for 'depth' (its default of 2 or what increasing it yields). The semantics of the second parameter are entirely undocumented.
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 gives a clear verb+resource: extracting a related view of a subject from the design tree / bidirectional relationship graph, and enumerates the four relationship kinds returned. It is specific about what the tool produces, but it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as get_design_graph, analyze_upper_design, or reverse_reasoning, whose outputs it partially duplicates.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Given that siblings analyze_upper_design, reverse_reasoning, and find_related_technologies overlap with the views this tool exposes, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap and leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.