mxa_read_marker_y

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's confirmation of a read operation adds minimal value. It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., if no marker is active) or return format, though the output schema may cover the latter. The description adds specific context about reading amplitude rather than other marker properties.

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 is focused and efficient. It conveys the essential purpose without superfluous text. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding a second sentence for usage context without losing conciseness.

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 tool's moderate complexity (parameter count 2, no required params, but output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., active marker), dependencies, or return value nature. The output schema may fill some gaps, but the description should provide a 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%, and the description does not explain the two parameters 'alias' and 'params_json'. There is no clue about what values params_json expects or how alias affects the operation. The parameters are entirely opaque.

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 verb '读取' (read) and the specific resource '当前标记点的幅度值' (amplitude value of current marker point). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mxa_read_marker_x which reads the X coordinate.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisite conditions such as setting a marker first, or that mxa_peak_search should be used to locate a peak before reading its amplitude.

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