driver_wiring

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the categories of content returned (wiring table, pitfalls sorted by failure rate, log reading, exam highlights), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, freshness/caching, or the read-only nature beyond the implicit 'look up'.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger second. No filler; each clause carries meaning. Slightly list-like but appropriately sized for the tool.

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 the single-parameter signature is simple. The description covers purpose, content, and trigger adequately for a read-only knowledge lookup; only the parameter's exact expected form is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'name' parameter. The description implies the parameter is a driver identifier ('specified driver') but adds no format, casing, or accepted-value guidance beyond that inference. Marginal value over the bare schema.

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+resource: '查指定驱动的接线知识库' (look up the wiring knowledge base for a specified driver), and enumerates the content types returned (wiring table, ranked pitfall list, log interpretation, exam points). This clearly separates it from driver_list/driver_get, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit usage trigger: check this before answering 'how do I wire XX sensor / why doesn't it work'. That is clear context for when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternatives to use instead (e.g., driver_get for metadata), so it is not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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