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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it requires login and itemizes what the listing exposes (name, client, token last-6, creation/last-use/expiration/revocation timestamps), which helps an agent understand the auth dependency and data returned.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the login requirement, then the purpose and returned fields, then the alternative tool. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately enumerates the returned fields, and it notes the login prerequisite and the sibling used for revocation. Nothing an agent needs to call this zero-parameter read tool correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no schema semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent or describe non-existent inputs.

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?

States a specific verb ('列' / list) and resource ('本人agent/CLI设备' / my agent/CLI devices), and enumerates the fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling revoke_my_device by naming that tool as the revocation path, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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?

Prerequisite context is explicit ('【需要登录】' / login required) and it points to revoke_my_device for the related revoke action. It does not state when not to use this tool or contrast it with other 'list_my_*' siblings, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives treatment.

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