读取本地 IsingQ 求解结果

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the explicit '不联网' confirmation and, more importantly, the caveat that the result does not assert business feasibility or global optimality — a semantic guardrail the annotations cannot express.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, then behavioral caveats. No filler, though the semicolon-packed clause about feasibility/optimality could be slightly easier to parse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. The gaps are the provenance/format of solve_id and what happens when a stored result is absent, which matter for correct invocation.

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?

There is one required parameter (solve_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its format or where it comes from (e.g., returned by isingq_solve_start/isingq_solve_poll). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and does not.

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 concrete verb (读取) and a well-scoped resource (本机保存的求解状态、结果与来源信息), so an agent knows this retrieves a persisted solve rather than starting or advancing one. It does not name the sibling that is closest in function (isingq_solve_poll), so the distinction must be inferred from '本机保存的'.

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 '读取本机保存的' plus '不联网' implies this is for already-persisted results as opposed to the networked polling tool, which is useful implied context. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over isingq_solve_poll or isingq_solve_start, so the routing burden stays with the agent.

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