mxa_set_detector

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

Annotations only include destructiveHint: false, indicating the operation is not destructive. The description does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, state changes, or whether the tool is a write operation. For a tool that modifies instrument settings, more transparency is expected.

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 extremely brief (a single sentence in Chinese), but it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. While concise, it lacks essential structure and fails to front-load useful information. Every sentence should be earned, but this single sentence merely repeats the tool name.

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 two parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It does not clarify the tool's purpose beyond the name, explain parameters, or describe the return format. The description adds negligible value to the agent's understanding.

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?

The input schema defines two parameters (alias and params_json) with no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain what these parameters mean or how to use them. Since the description must compensate for missing schema documentation, this is a critical gap.

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 '设置检波器类型' translates to 'Set detector type', which is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'mxa_set_detector'. This is a tautology, providing no additional insight into what the tool accomplishes beyond the name itself. It does not differentiate this tool from other similar 'mxa_set_*' tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among the many sibling tools with similar naming patterns (e.g., mxa_set_attenuation, mxa_set_frequency), there is no context or criteria for selecting this specific tool for the task of setting a detector type.

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