Triggers one device vibration with configurable duration and amplitude, supporting variable interpolation and returning a JSON snapshot for workflow validation.
振动一次。字符串参数支持 ${var} 插值；结果以变量快照 JSON 返回。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| require | No | 执行后要求为 true 的变量名（如 click_success），不满足按出错处理 | |
| duration | No | 振动时长毫秒（1–10000）（默认 200）（也认：ms） | |
| on_error | No | 节点出错时：skip=跳过继续（默认），stop=停止整个工作流 | |
| amplitude | No | 振动强度（1–255）（默认 128） | |
| node_timeout_ms | No | 单节点超时毫秒，0=不限；默认 30 分钟 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that string parameters accept ${var} interpolation and that the result comes back as a variable-snapshot JSON, and "一次" implies a single non-repeating pulse. It says nothing about device/permission requirements, blocking behavior, or what happens on hardware lacking a vibrator.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no filler. The second sentence packs interpolation and return shape into one semicolon clause, which is efficient though slightly dense.
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 simple one-shot action it covers the essentials: what it does, interpolation support, and the return shape in lieu of an output schema. Given zero annotations, it should ideally also state permission/side-effect expectations or failure behavior when vibration is unsupported.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains duration ranges, amplitude ranges, require, on_error, and node_timeout_ms. The description only adds the cross-cutting fact that string parameters support ${var} interpolation, which is a modest supplement rather than new per-parameter meaning.
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?
"振动一次" states a specific verb (vibrate) and scope (once), which separates it from ambient siblings like ACTION_TOAST or ACTION_MEDIA_CONTROL. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as ACTION_TOAST for user feedback or ACTION_DND_MODE for silencing. An agent must infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.