ps_get_ocp

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

The 'readOnlyHint' annotation already indicates it's a read-only operation. The description confirms 'query', adding no additional behavioral details beyond what the annotation provides. It does not mention side effects, authorization, or output format, but the annotation partially fulfills this dimension.

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, concise sentence with no extraneous content. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding significant length, such as mentioning the output type.

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 existence of an output schema, the description is not required to detail return values. However, it lacks critical context about parameter usage and when to choose this over sibling tools. For a tool with two undocumented parameters and many siblings, it is incomplete.

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%. The description does not explain the purpose of the two parameters ('alias' and 'params_json') at all. It merely states the overall action, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding of the parameters.

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 '[KEYSIGHT_PS] 查询过流保护值' (query overcurrent protection value) clearly states the action (query) and the resource (overcurrent protection value). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ps_set_ocp' (set) and 'ps_get_ovp' (overvoltage protection).

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 such as 'ps_get_current' or 'ps_get_ovp'. The description lacks any context about usage scenarios or exclusions.

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