ps_get_error

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, indicating a safe read operation. However, it does not disclose any behavioral details beyond that, such as whether reading the queue clears it, the format of the returned data, or any side effects. With annotations already declaring readonly, the description adds minimal 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 extremely concise (one short phrase), but it sacrifices necessary information. It is under-specification rather than efficient communication. Every sentence should earn its place, and here a single phrase does not sufficiently describe the tool for effective use.

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 that the tool has an output schema (not shown) and zero parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide adequate context. It lacks usage guidelines and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use correctly without additional insight. The minimal description does not compensate for structural gaps.

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 provides no information about the two parameters (alias and params_json). The agent has no semantic cues to understand what these parameters control, such as which power supply or additional SCPI parameters. This severely hampers correct invocation.

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 states '读取错误队列' (Read error queue) which clearly identifies the verb (read) and resource (error queue). The 'ps' prefix distinguishes it from sibling tools like cmw_get_error and mxa_get_error. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from those, and the purpose is clear but minimal.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or any contextual hints. The description is a single phrase without any usage context.

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