Compute Modbus RTU CRC16 for RS485 data or verify a complete frame by checking its data and CRC bytes.
计算或校验 Modbus RTU 的 CRC16（RS485 毕设必备）。 check=False：对数据部分计算 CRC；check=True：校验完整帧（数据+CRC）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check | No | ||
| hex_frame | 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the two operating modes (compute vs verify), which is meaningful behavioral context, but says nothing about input format expectations, error/validation behavior, or performance. Adequate but not rich for an annotation-free tool.
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 tight clauses: purpose first, then a mode-by-mode breakdown. Well front-loaded and low-waste. The parenthetical '(RS485 毕设必备)' is decorative filler that adds no operational value.
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 described. For a two-parameter, no-annotation tool, the description covers the core decision (compute vs verify) adequately. The remaining gap is the hex_frame format convention, which matters 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'check' parameter semantics (compute vs verify), which is good, but leaves 'hex_frame' format unspecified — an agent cannot tell whether to pass spaced hex, continuous hex, or with/without prefix, nor whether CRC bytes are included. Partial compensation.
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 pair (计算/校验) and a precise resource (Modbus RTU CRC16), so an agent immediately knows this is a checksum utility. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like modbus_parse or frame_parse, but the resource is narrow enough to be unambiguous.
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 description explicitly routes the two modes: check=False computes CRC over the data portion, check=True verifies a complete frame (data+CRC). This is clear when-to-use guidance for each branch. It lacks any exclusion or pointer to sibling tools for related tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.