查看 OCR 容量基准

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation does not change any running tasks, which is an important safety guarantee for a read-only tool. It does not mention authentication, freshness, or cost, but the non-mutation guarantee is the key behavioral trait and is clearly disclosed.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the resource and actions, then appends the non-mutation guarantee with a semicolon. No filler or redundant phrasing; every clause contributes meaningful information.

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?

The output schema likely covers the return fields, and the description names the main content categories. However, the description lacks parameter guidance and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke confidently without additional inference.

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 one required parameter, profile_id, but the description provides zero information about it. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not even mention the parameter or explain where the ID comes from or how it relates to the capacity baseline candidates.

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 uses the specific verb '读取' (read) and names the resource '容量基准' (capacity baseline), enumerating the exact data it returns: candidates, per-worker samples, throughput, quality gates, and suggestions. It also distinguishes itself from mutation-oriented siblings by stating it '不改变任何运行中任务' (does not alter any running tasks), clearly marking its read-only scope.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or alternative tool is named. The read verb and the safety note imply this is for inspection, but the description does not state when to choose it over plan_ocr_capacity_profile, start_ocr_capacity_profile, or activate_ocr_capacity_profile.

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