查询调试插件版本

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the prerequisite of Keil/UVSOCK being active, and the failure mode where the tool returns enabling instructions instead of a version string.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose and return type first, followed by a necessary prerequisite note, then a structured parameter section. No redundant wording.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description provides everything needed: what it returns, when it can succeed, and what happens on failure. The empty call example reinforces the no-argument contract.

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 are no parameters, and the schema covers 100% by being empty. The description explicitly states '无参数（直接调用）', which adds clarity beyond the empty schema and matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 states a specific verb ('查询') and resource ('Keil UVSOCK 插件的版本信息'), and adds the return format ('十六进制版本串'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling status/capability/session tools without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives explicit operating context: Keil must be running and UVSOCK enabled, otherwise the call fails and returns setup guidance. It does not enumerate alternatives, but the usage context is clear and sufficient for this simple no-parameter tool.

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