mxa_read_marker_x

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms a read operation. No additional behavioral details (e.g., return format, error conditions) are provided beyond the annotation, resulting in minimal added value.

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 with no waste. It is front-loaded, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) is acceptable given the brevity.

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?

The tool has an output schema (so return values are documented externally) but the description omits prerequisites (e.g., marker must be active) and context about the reading unit. Given the simplicity, it partially meets needs but misses key usage context.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation for the two parameters ('alias' and 'params_json'). With low coverage, the description must compensate but fails entirely, leaving the agent guessing about their purpose.

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 action ('读取' = read) and resource ('当前标记点的频率值' = frequency value of current marker point). It distinguishes from siblings like 'mxa_read_marker_y' which reads a different attribute.

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 over alternatives (e.g., mxa_read_marker_y) or prerequisites (marker must be set). The description simply states the function without context.

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