queryAbnormalReportPage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: reads form field configurations, builds dynamic query parameters, queries paginated data, and uses data dictionary translations. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects. The info is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 paragraph that front-loads the critical prerequisite (reading an MCP resource) before stating the main purpose. It contains several sentences but all contribute useful information. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure is logical and prioritized.

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 tool is complex (5 parameters, nested objects) and has no output schema. The description mentions that results include fields like 异常详情, 处理结果, and that translation is applied, but it does not describe the response format, pagination metadata, or error handling. For a tool of this complexity, more detail about the output would be beneficial.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that filters support fuzzy search for text fields and range search for time fields, and that 'contain' and 'exclude' manage form field initialization. These details enrich the agent's understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 purpose: querying MES abnormal reports / Andon abnormal records. It uses specific verbs (查询) and resource (AndonAbnormalReport), and explicitly lists scenarios where the tool should be used, making it easy for an agent to select correctly.

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 guidance on when to use the tool, including specific user intents (e.g., viewing abnormal reports, records, statistics) and even suggests it as a first step for exploring historical solutions. It also instructs to read a prerequisite MCP resource. However, no sibling tools are listed, so no direct comparison or when-not-to-use is given.

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