Lists translation units that are actually compiled and returns their full compile parameters, so you can identify which source files participate in the build.
列出真实参与编译的翻译单元（TU）及其完整编译参数。回答"哪些文件真正被编译了"。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden alone. It states the return payload (TUs plus their full compile parameters), but says nothing about read-only semantics, cost or scale on large build graphs, or whether results are scoped to the current project. Adequate, not rich.
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?
Two sentences, both front-loaded with the core fact followed by the motivating question. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.
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 an output schema present and no parameters, the description only needs to convey scope, which it does. The one remaining gap is whether "actually compiled" means the whole project or the agent's current working context, and there is no note on result size.
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 declares zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; the description correctly gives no parameter guidance. Baseline 4 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ("列出…翻译单元（TU）及其完整编译参数") and pins down what counts as a TU — one that actually participates in compilation. This distinguishes it in substance from list_entities, but it never names or contrasts with that sibling, so the differentiation is left implicit.
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 framing question "回答'哪些文件真正被编译了'" tells the agent the exact situation this tool serves, which is clear usage context. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative (e.g., when list_entities is the better pick), so no 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.