张开夹爪

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

The description goes well beyond the idempotentHint annotation by disclosing specific behavioral traits: rejection during emergency stop, the recommendation to stop the arm first, and the pneumatic control mechanism with M62.0/M62.1 and mutual exclusivity. This gives the agent a clear picture of how the tool operates and its constraints.

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, front-loaded with the core action ('张开夹爪。返回确认信息'), and each subsequent sentence adds value: rejection condition, pre-operation recommendation, and control details. No wasted words.

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 and idempotentHint annotation, the description covers everything needed: what it does, what it returns, when it fails, and a safety recommendation. It is complete for its simplicity.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific details (none are needed), but it does provide contextual information about the control signals that might be relevant to understanding the tool's operation.

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 using a specific verb and resource: '张开夹爪' (open the gripper) and indicates it returns a confirmation message. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from the sibling tool gripper_close, which performs the opposite action.

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 provides helpful context about when the tool can and cannot be used, noting that it will be rejected in an emergency stop locked state and recommending that the arm be stopped before operation. However, it does not explicitly contrast with gripper_close or other alternatives, though the purpose is self-evident.

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