cmw_opc

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=true, indicating a non-destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context (waiting for completion) but does not detail blocking behavior, timeout, or error handling.

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 very concise (single line). While brief, it lacks structure and fails to front-load key details beyond the minimal purpose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description still misses critical information about parameter semantics and usage context. For a simple wait operation, it is adequate in purpose but incomplete in supporting correct invocation.

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%, meaning the parameters 'alias' and 'params_json' have no inline documentation. The description does not explain their purpose or usage, leaving the agent with no semantic context beyond names.

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 '[CMW] 等待操作完成' clearly indicates the tool waits for operation completion on a CMW instrument. It is specific to CMW, distinguishing it from generic 'opc' or instrument-specific variants like 'mxa_opc'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'opc' or 'mxa_opc'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, triggering operations, or when not to use it.

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