set_linear

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that non-zero values require confirm=true, a safety-relevant condition, but omits what happens if confirm is omitted or false, whether zero values are safe, and any device authorization or rate-limit behavior.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the critical confirmation condition attached. It contains 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?

For a device-mutating tool with no annotations and only 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but operational context, level range, and safety behavior remain incomplete.

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 the description has to compensate. It clarifies that level controls 伸缩强度 and that non-zero level requires confirm=true, which adds meaningful semantics, but it gives no range, units, or integer bounds for level.

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 (设置) and resource (DK-META2 伸缩强度), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself somewhat from set_vibration and set_rotary by specifying linear extension/retraction intensity, but it does not explicitly route against those siblings.

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 only guidance is that non-zero values require confirm=true, which is a parameter precondition rather than general when-to-use guidance. There is no explanation of when to choose this tool over set_vibration, set_rotary, or stop_device.

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