Inspect an injected game probe's IL2CPP module, image count, and available APIs, and verify runtime/static consistency via image_count_matches to detect mismatched game instances.
查看已注入游戏的探针状态：IL2CPP 模块、映像数量、可用 API。含静态/运行时一致性自检（image_count_matches）。
一致性自检：image_count 应与静态索引里的程序集数量吻合；
不吻合说明探针挂到的可能不是同一个游戏实例，需要排查。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: what the response contains and how to interpret image_count_matches as evidence of a mismatched game instance.
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 short, front-loaded sentences: the first names what is inspected, the second explains the self-check. Bold markers are used for emphasis without padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does cover the principal fields plus the diagnostic interpretation. It omits any note on what a healthy versus unhealthy 'available APIs' listing looks like, but an agent can still call it confidently.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing further the description could add on parameter meaning.
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 and resource: view the probe status of the injected game, enumerating IL2CPP modules, image count and available APIs. That distinguishes it from generic siblings like get_diagnostics or list_images, 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?
The consistency-check paragraph implies this is called to confirm the probe is attached to the right game instance and to troubleshoot otherwise, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_images, get_diagnostics or runtime_class_info.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.