读取峰会项目上下文

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add non-obvious scope. It adds meaningful context by listing the fixed data categories and stating that personal registration data is not accessed, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and content, then adds a scoping exclusion. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description is complete: it lists all five content areas returned and what is deliberately excluded. An agent can invoke it confidently without additional documentation.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter syntax to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. The description usefully defines what the parameterless call returns, fully covering the operation's input scope.

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 states a specific action ('返回') and enumerates the exact returned content: official site tech stack, Git status, production domain, quality gates, and release rules. The explicit disclaimer that it does not read personal registration data distinguishes it from registration-related siblings.

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?

It clearly indicates this tool provides project context and explicitly excludes personal registration data, giving a when-not signal. It does not name a sibling alternative outright, but the scope statement is enough for an agent to select it for context retrieval over registration or action tools.

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