verify_firmware_upgrade_boot

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: it requires an out-of-band human action (manual power cycle) before it is meaningful, and it explicitly disclaims sending restart or flash commands. It does not discuss failure reporting or device-selection prerequisites, keeping it short of a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the precondition, then the verification targets, then the negative scope constraint. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter read-only check with an output schema (so return shape need not be explained) and full safety annotations, the description covers the essential context: precondition, what is checked, and what it will not do. The remaining gap is the implied prerequisite of a selected/probed device, which is left for the agent to infer from the sibling set.

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 one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema contributes nothing. The description partly compensates by framing job_id semantically as the successfully flashed job ('已成功烧录任务'), but it never states the identifier's format, source, or what happens if the job is not in a flashed state.

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 (只读核对 / read-only verification) and a specific resource set (device identity, version, upgrade-status reset) tied to an already-flashed job. It is clearly distinguishable from mutating siblings such as start_firmware_upgrade and from polling siblings such as get_firmware_upgrade_status, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

It states the triggering condition precisely: use this only after the user has completed a manual power-cycle restart of a successfully flashed job. It also rules out alternatives by declaring it will not send reboot or flash commands, which steers the agent away from start_firmware_upgrade. What is missing is an explicit fallback (e.g. what to call if verification fails).

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