mxa_opc

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the 'wait' operation (non-modifying). The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., blocking behavior, timeout, polling). It is consistent but does not enrich beyond the annotation.

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 short sentence, efficiently conveying the core action. However, it is in Chinese, which may reduce clarity for English-centric AI agents. Still, no redundancy or wasted words.

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 'wait' operation, the description should disclose whether it is blocking, timeouts, prerequisites, or response behavior. None are mentioned. While an output schema exists (not shown), the lack of parameter guidance and behavioral context makes the description incomplete for effective tool use.

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 0% with two parameters (alias, params_json) having no descriptions. The description does not explain their purpose, leaving the agent without guidance. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it fails to do so entirely.

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 '等待操作完成' translates to 'Wait for operation to complete', clearly indicating a verb (wait) and resource (operation). The 'MXA' prefix distinguishes it from sibling OPC tools for different contexts, though the description does not explicitly state this differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus other OPC tools (e.g., cmw_opc, ps_opc). The prefix 'mxa' implies it is for a specific device, but without explicit context, an agent may not know when to select this over alternatives.

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