mold_master_view

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it does state that the tool is read-only and uses a built-in sample, which signals no mutation and fixed sample data. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or what 'rendering' produces.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the tool's nature ('read-only view') and then a concise statement of content ('renders all fields, built-in sample'). No wasted words.

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 parameterless read-only view, the description captures the essential facts: read-only, all fields rendered, and sample data embedded. It lacks explicit context about why the sample exists or how the result is used, but nothing critical is missing for invoking the tool.

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 and the empty schema already covers 100% of the interface, so the description needs to add no parameter information. Per the calibration baseline for 0-param tools, this is sufficient.

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 names the resource (模具主数据/mold master data) and the action (renders all fields in a read-only view). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mold_master_entry or other view-like tools.

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 guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as mold_master_entry, no exclusions, and no context about expected use case. The agent is left to infer the intended scenario.

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