get_firmware_build

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

The annotations already establish readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: it performs an integrity check (sealed-file hash verification) and makes no device connection, which tells the agent it can be called safely without hardware present.

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?

A single short sentence with the primary action first and the offline constraint appended. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the tool is simple (one parameter, read-only). Still missing is any hint about what a failed hash verification looks like to the caller or how to obtain a build_id, which matters for a verification tool an agent may chain after register_firmware_build.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, build_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about its format, where it comes from, or how it relates to the registered build. The name is fairly self-explanatory, which keeps this above 1, but the description adds no meaning over the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb pair (读取/核对 = read/verify) and a specific resource (已登记编译产物 = a registered build artifact plus its sealed-file hash). That distinguishes it from the sibling register_firmware_build, which creates rather than reads. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

"不联系设备" (does not contact the device) implies the tool is for offline inspection of already-registered builds, which is a real usage signal in a toolset full of device-touching siblings. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over register_firmware_build or the validation/upgrade tools, leaving the routing to inference.

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