Retrieve the latest submitted SVG annotations without blocking. Recover after timeout interruptions; returns 'empty' status when no annotations are available.
非阻塞地取最近一批已提交的批注(wait_for_annotations 的兜底)。
用于超时链中断后恢复现场;没有批注时返回 status="empty"。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It reveals that the operation is non-blocking and mentions the empty status, but does not explain what it returns on a success path (e.g., does it return a list of annotations or a status?), nor whether the fetch consumes the annotations. This is a significant gap since there is no output schema.
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 concise, two sentences, with the core purpose stated first. It fronts the key information (non-blocking fetch, fallback for wait_for_annotations, purpose) and includes an edge-case note. No fluff.
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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), so the description needs to explain the return value. It only mentions the empty case (status='empty') and leaves the non-empty case unspecified. Without an output schema, this is a notable gap for an agent that needs to interpret the result. The purpose and context are clear, but return details are incomplete.
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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuous). Since there are no parameters, the description is not required to add any parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 identifies a clear verb (non-blocking fetch), a specific resource (recent committed annotations), and explicitly frames it as a fallback to wait_for_annotations, which distinguishes it from that sibling. However, the terms 'recent batch' and 'committed' are not defined, leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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 a clear usage hint: it is for recovering context after an interrupted timeout chain. It also states the edge case of returning status='empty' when no annotations exist. It does not explicitly rule out other tools like open_svg or set_status, but the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.