解除锁定

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

Annotations include only idempotentHint: true. The description adds key behavioral details: it specifically releases the emergency-stop lock, returns an unlock confirmation, and restores normal operation of all motion tools. This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies side effects and post-conditions.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action ('解除 emergency_stop 造成的锁定'), and includes essential scope and idempotency information without any filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema and idempotency annotation, the description covers purpose, scope, behavior when not locked, and outcome. It is fully self-contained and adequate for an agent to select and invoke 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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter information because there are none; the schema is trivially complete.

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: '解除 emergency_stop 造成的锁定，恢复运动能力' (unlock the lock caused by emergency_stop, restore motion capability). It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly limits scope to emergency-stop locks, distinguishing it from other motion-related sibling tools.

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 clear usage context: '仅对急停锁定有效' (only effective for emergency stop lock) and '如果未锁定则无操作（幂等）' (no operation if not locked). This implicitly tells when to use and that it is safe to call unconditionally, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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