连接检测

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; the description reinforces with '无任何副作用' and clarifies the response includes pong and current position. It adds context on output without contradicting 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?

Description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a safety note and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no parameters, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, alternative, and response summary. It is fully sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 (schema has empty properties), so parameter descriptions are unnecessary. The description mentions 'current position' in the return, but no parameter semantics are needed. Baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb '检查' (check) targeting the resource '机械臂是否在线' (arm online) and states the return values (pong and current position). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_status, which is mentioned as providing full status.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: '用于快速确认连接状态' (for quickly confirming connection status). Gives a direct alternative: '如需完整状态（速度/运动/错误码），用 get_status'.

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