set_relays_by_mask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavior. It attempts to detail the mask mapping but gives an incorrect interpretation: the schema says 0=保持原状 (maintain state) while the description claims 0=断开 (de-energize). This misrepresents the tool's actual behavior, potentially leading to unintended relay states. It also fails to mention the address parameter's role.

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 very brief, one sentence plus an example, and gets to the point quickly. No excessive wording. The example is helpful in principle, though inaccurate.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should cover more. It explains the mask concept but omits the address parameter, the effects of broadcast (255), and any prerequisites. The contradictory bit semantics also make it incomplete for safe usage. Given the complexity of relay control and the number of siblings, a more thorough description is needed.

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 a baseline of 3 is warranted. However, the description adds incorrect semantics for the mask parameter ('1=吸合, 0=断开') that contradicts the schema's '1=操作, 0=保持原状'. The example mask=0x000F is thus misleading. The address parameter is not mentioned in the description at all.

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 states '按 16 位掩码批量设置继电器状态' (batch set relay states by 16-bit mask), clearly identifying the verb and resource. However, the bit semantics described ('0=断开') contradict the schema's '0=保持原状', making the purpose somewhat misleading.

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 use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for multi-relay control, nor contrasts with single-relay tools like connect_relay or all_relays_on. Lacks any 'use this when' context.

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