set_dut_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys the effect (接通/切断输出) and app-equivalence, but says nothing about side effects on an in-progress measurement, whether the state persists, whether a mode precondition causes failure, or what errors/auth are involved for what is clearly a state-mutating operation.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the mode/app context in parentheses. Every clause earns its place; only the slightly terse parenthetical framing keeps it from being ideal.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the essentials (what it toggles, in which mode) are present. But with zero annotations and no return/error description, an agent cannot predict failure conditions or side effects on ongoing captures, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required boolean 'on' has no schema description. The description partially compensates by pairing 接通/切断 (connect/cut) with the output concept, implying on=true energizes the DUT, but it never explicitly binds true/false to those states.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: toggling DUT power output, and clarifies it only makes sense in SOURCE mode and mirrors the official app's power button. This is far clearer than a bare name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like connect/disconnect or set_mode beyond the SOURCE-mode qualifier.

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 phrase 'SOURCE 模式下' implies the precondition that the device must already be in SOURCE mode, which is useful routing context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g., connect/disconnect), and no statement of what to do if the mode is wrong.

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