Fetch a named driver's pre-validated package with wiring table, full code, and validation records. Only the *_port.h header needs adaptation for hardware integration.
输出指定驱动的接线表+完整代码+验证记录。name 来自 driver_list。 这些代码是预验证过的，直接交付用户；需要适配的只有 *_port.h。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does add genuine behavioral context: the code is pre-validated and deliverable as-is, and only *_port.h needs adaptation. But it omits any side-effect/safety profile and does not clarify whether this is purely a read/lookup 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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core output description and followed by the source of the parameter and a delivery caveat. No filler.
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 values need not be re-explained; the description covers purpose, parameter provenance, and the key adaptation caveat. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the sibling-selection question left open.
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 name parameter has no description in the schema. The description partially compensates by stating the name originates from driver_list, giving provenance, but adds no format or matching-rule detail.
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 (输出/output) and resource (指定驱动) plus the concrete return payload: wiring table, complete code, and verification records. This distinguishes it from driver_list (enumeration) and driver_wiring (wiring only), though the overlap with driver_wiring is not explicitly resolved.
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?
"name 来自 driver_list" implies a required lookup step before calling, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it never states when to choose driver_get versus driver_wiring or driver_list, so usage is only implied rather than contrasted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.