get_firmware_upgrade_status

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context by stating it performs no device communication and by warning that historical records do not reflect a new flash. That last caveat is a genuine behavioral trait an agent could otherwise misread as fresh state.

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?

Three tight clauses separated by semicolons, front-loaded with what is read and what is not touched, then the fallback behavior. Dense but every clause carries information; slight density loss from packing both the no-ID behavior and the historical-record caveat into one sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose, and the description covers the no-device-contact scope plus both fallback paths. For a single-parameter read tool whose annotations already declare the safety profile, this is essentially complete, with only the sibling-routing detail missing.

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 single job_id parameter has no description or default explanation in the schema, so the description must compensate. It does: it defines the empty-ID fallback (latest MCP job) and the further fallback to prior standalone-script records, which is exactly the semantics an agent needs to set or omit job_id correctly.

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 (读取) plus three concrete resources: flashing progress, Flash read-back verification, and boot-validation results. The clause '不联系设备' scopes it away from device-touching siblings such as probe_device_read_only, though it never names a sibling explicitly and leaves the distinction from get_firmware_validation_status / verify_firmware_upgrade_boot implicit.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: omit the ID to get the most recent MCP job, and if no job exists you may consult records from earlier standalone scripts. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the sibling validation-status and boot-verify tools, so the routing is suggested rather than explicit.

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