Retrieve status and output hashes from a capture or analysis directory to verify results without triggering recalculation or resending. Choose exactly one directory parameter.
只查询捕获或分析目录中的状态与输出哈希。running 返回 unknown，不判断计算已停止；不自动重发捕获或分析。两种目录参数恰选其一。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result_dir | No | dm_2d_analyze 使用的结果目录 | |
| capture_dir | No | dm_2d_capture 使用的捕获目录 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it is read-only, running state returns 'unknown' rather than a stopped verdict, and it will not auto-resend captures or analyses. That resolving of the 'running' ambiguity is valuable, though the response shape beyond status+hash is not described.
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?
Front-loaded with the scoping verb '只查询' and packed into a few semicolon-separated clauses with no filler. The density makes it slightly run-on, but every clause adds distinct information.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain return values; it names 'status and output hash' and the running->unknown case, but does not describe the full response envelope. Adequate for a simple read tool, but not fully complete given the absence of an output schema.
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 100%, so the two parameters are already documented as result_dir/capture_dir. The description adds a constraint the schema does not encode: exactly one of the two must be supplied (both are optional in the schema), which is genuine value beyond structured fields.
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 gives a specific verb and resource: query only (只查询) the status and output hash found in a capture or analysis directory. The agent can distinguish this from dm_2d_capture/dm_2d_analyze, which produce those directories, but no sibling is named to make the contrast explicit.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool reads a capture or analyze directory, and '两种目录参数恰选其一' (choose exactly one of the two directory params) constrains invocation. It never explicitly says when to call this versus running dm_2d_capture or dm_2d_analyze again, and there are no exclusions beyond that clause.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.