Checks communication line status between WPS add-ins to diagnose connection issues. Returns latency and protocol state, helping identify if the line is operating normally.
检查与WPS加载项之间的通信线路状态。
使用场景：
"检查通信状态"
"诊断连接问题"
"通信线路是否正常"
特点：
比ping更详细的通信诊断
返回线路延迟、协议状态等信息
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0-hardened.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns latency and protocol status ('返回线路延迟、协议状态等信息'), which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't detail what 'more detailed' means operationally or any side effects, though none are expected for a read-only check.
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 and well-structured with a clear main statement, use cases, and feature bullets. It front-loads the purpose and keeps each line informative. Minor redundancy exists between the main statement and the use cases, but overall it is efficient.
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, read-only diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use cases, and expected return information (latency, protocol status). It doesn't specify exact output format or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, it is reasonably complete.
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 schema is trivially complete (100% coverage). The description adds context about what the tool checks and returns, which is meaningful for a no-parameter tool. Baseline 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to document.
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 checks communication line status with WPS add-ins, using a specific verb ('检查') and resource ('与WPS加载项之间的通信线路状态'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it is more detailed than ping, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling wps_common_ping.
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 explicit use cases ('检查通信状态', '诊断连接问题', '通信线路是否正常') and contrasts with ping ('比ping更详细的通信诊断'), giving an agent clear context for when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.