creo_verify_saved_copy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds the lifecycle context of loading from the safe output directory, checking, and unloading from memory — a behavioral detail not present in annotations. No contradiction.

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 direct, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, from the read-only load to the final unload.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It covers the action and lifecycle but does not describe the verification outcome (e.g., return value or error on mismatch) or define '安全输出目录' precisely. An agent can call it but may not predict the result of a failed check.

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 description coverage is only 33%: only model_file has a description. The phrase '核对字符串参数' gives a general hint that a string parameter is being checked, but it does not explain the 'parameter' enum values, the meaning of 'CNAME', or the precise role of 'expected_value'. Two parameters remain virtually undocumented, and the description does not compensate enough.

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 specific verbs (只读载入, 核对, 卸载) and identifies the resource (Creo 零件副本 in 安全输出目录). It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like creo_get_current_model (which queries the current model) and creo_create_safe_parameter_copy (which creates copies).

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 description implies the tool is for verifying a saved copy in the safe output directory, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives, nor mention exclusions or prerequisites. The intent is inferable, but no explicit guidance is given.

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