夹紧夹爪

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool returns a confirmation message, is rejected during emergency stop lock, and uses pneumatic control with mutually exclusive M62.0/M62.1 signals, adding substantial behavioral context.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose and relevant details about behavior and safety. No redundant information is present.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: return value, rejection conditions, safety precautions, and control logic. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 clearly states the tool's function: closing the gripper (夹紧夹爪), with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling gripper_open by specifying the opposite operation and M62.1 for closing vs M62.0 for opening.

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 provides a clear safety guideline (confirm the arm has stopped before operating) and notes that it will be rejected during emergency stop lock, which informs when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling gripper_open as the alternative, though mutual exclusion with M62.0 is implied.

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