get_program_state

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

No annotations provided, leaving the description as the sole source. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as safety, permissions, or side effects beyond the basic read 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?

The description is short and direct, with no extraneous information. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and parameter.

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?

For a simple tool, the description omits what 'program execution status' actually returns (e.g., values, format). Without output schema, more explanation is needed to fully inform the agent.

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 description adds minimal meaning ('IP：机器人地址') but lacks format constraints or further detail. For a single parameter, more context is expected.

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 clearly states the action (获取/get) and resource (程序执行状态/program execution status) and specifies the parameter (IP机器人地址). It effectively distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by focusing on program state.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or provide context for selection among siblings.

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