get_parameter_definition

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: factory values are reference values, not live device values, and communication addresses are unverified. It still omits error behavior when a code or catalog_id is invalid.

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 front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the caveats second; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented surface, but there is no filler.

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 explanation, and the caveats about factory values and unverified addresses are helpful. But with two fully undocumented required parameters and ~50 sibling tools, the definition leaves the agent without enough to pick this tool confidently or supply correct arguments.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in structured form. The description only alludes to 'code' via '功能码' and says nothing about 'catalog_id', its valid source, or the expected code format. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource: '读取指定功能码的参考定义' (read the reference definition of a specified function code). An agent can tell this is a lookup of static parameter metadata rather than a live read. However, it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as search_parameters, lookup_enum_value, or discover_device_parameter_catalog.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the many parameter-related siblings, nor on prerequisites such as needing a catalog_id from list_parameter_catalogs. The clause about factory values and unverified communication addresses is a data caveat, not a usage rule.

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