szlcsc_altium_smoke_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'real machine' (实机) implying it runs on a live Altium installation, which may have side effects, but it does not clarify whether the tool is destructive, read-only, or what permissions are needed. It also omits details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens to the system during the test.

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 packs key information about the tool's purpose, constraints, and options. It is concise and efficient, though it could be slightly better structured by front-loading the core action. Overall, it is not overly verbose and every part contributes meaning.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 1 required, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema present), the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level overview but lacks details on parameter behavior, workflow steps, error conditions, and the exact meaning of 'smoke test' in this context. The agent would need additional information to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains some parameters: 'up to 5 C numbers' hints at identifiers, 'optional 3D' maps to require_3d, and 'test merge' maps to test_merge. However, parameters like preview, timeout, and output_root are not addressed. The description adds value for some parameters but leaves others unexplained, resulting in only partial compensation.

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 it is a smoke test for Altium involving SchLib, PcbLib, report, optional 3D, and merge testing. It specifies a limit of 5 identifiers. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like szlcsc_altium_status, szlcsc_altium_review, or szlcsc_altium_import, which could confuse an agent about when to use this specific tool.

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 implies usage for smoke testing with up to 5 identifiers and optional 3D/merge testing. It provides some context (max 5 C numbers, optional 3D, merge test) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the intended use case.

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