get_units

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'read' wording is consistent with that. It adds no substantial behavioral context beyond the annotation, but for a zero-parameter getter there are no additional side effects to disclose.

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 a single bilingual sentence pair, front-loaded and free of filler. Both the Chinese and English sentences are needed for the intended audiences and add no redundant content beyond translation.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered getter, this is functionally complete: an agent can call it without deciding inputs or worrying about side effects. The only minor gap is that the description does not specify the return format, but no output schema exists and no input decisions hinge on it.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameters exist and the description correctly identifies the operation's target.

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 uses a specific verb ('read') and a concrete resource ('current unit setup'), and contrasts with the sibling set_units by describing only retrieval, not modification. This leaves no doubt what the tool does.

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 read-only purpose makes it clear that this tool should be used when current unit settings are needed, with set_units as the counterpart for changing them. However, the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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