get_ur_software_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (retrieves software version) but doesn't describe what happens if the IP is invalid, whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what format the version information returns in, or potential error conditions. This is inadequate for a tool that presumably communicates with external hardware.

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 efficiently structured in two brief sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter. There's no unnecessary verbiage, and the information is front-loaded. It could be slightly more polished but effectively communicates the essentials.

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 tool that interacts with physical robots (implied by IP address requirement) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like required robot state (connected/online), authentication needs, error handling, return format, or how this differs from other robot data retrieval tools in the sibling list.

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 description explicitly mentions the 'IP' parameter and clarifies it's the '机器人地址' (robot address), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's bare 'Ip' title with 0% coverage. However, it doesn't provide format details (IPv4, hostname), validation rules, or examples, leaving some ambiguity about what constitutes a valid input.

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/retrieve) and resource ('指定机器人的软件版本' - specified robot's software version), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_robot_model' or 'get_serial_number' that also retrieve robot information, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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 provides minimal guidance by mentioning the IP parameter requirement, but offers no explicit when-to-use context, no comparison to alternatives, and no prerequisites like needing a connected robot. Given the many sibling tools for robot data retrieval, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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