show_interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (definition field with raw field text) and failure behavior (error on typo or missing package). It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only/has no side effects, so a small gap remains.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by clearly labeled when-to-use, parameter, and return sections; every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, invocation trigger, parameter format, return field, and error cases — everything an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the 包/类型/名称 format and gives three concrete examples spanning msg, srv, and action variants. This adds meaning the bare string schema entirely lacks.

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?

Names a specific verb (查看/view) and resource (ROS2 消息/服务/动作类型的字段定义), making clear this is about interface type definitions rather than topics, nodes, or params like the siblings. An agent can distinguish it from sample_topic or get_topic_info without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit '何时用' section states the exact trigger condition — having a type name such as the 'type' returned by sample_topic — which directly links it to a sibling tool. This is precise when-to-use guidance rather than implied usage.

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