预览盾构隧道整体管片环

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool validates parameters (implying potential error returns) and returns per-ring positions plus a preview token. It reinforces the read-only nature with '不会修改 Revit' which aligns with annotations. No contradictions; the description adds useful context beyond structured fields.

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 sentence that efficiently states the primary function and the key non-modification trait. It is front-loaded with the action, and there is no filler. A slightly clearer separation of validation and return behavior could improve structure, but it is concise and purposeful.

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?

With 10 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level summary of returns (positions and token) without detailing the output structure or how the token is used. It also does not mention any backend prerequisites (despite a sibling get_tunnel_backend_status) or error-handling specifics. While annotations cover safety, the missing output format and usage context leave an agent requiring further inference.

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 100%, with all 10 parameters having detailed descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters beyond the generic '校验整体环参数' (validate overall ring parameters), so it adds no additional semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents each parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: validate overall ring parameters and return each ring's position and a preview token. It uses a specific verb ('校验' validate, '返回' return) and resource ('整体管片环' overall segment rings), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like '预览盾构隧道管片' (preview segments) and '创建盾构隧道管片环' (create rings) by emphasizing it does not modify Revit and is for preview/validation only.

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 description implies usage for validation/preview rather than creation, reinforced by '此工具不会修改 Revit' (does not modify Revit). However, it neither explicitly names alternatives (e.g., preview_tunnel_segments vs. preview_tunnel_rings) nor provides conditions for when to use this tool over siblings like create_tunnel_rings. The context is present but not explicit, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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