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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's added value is the field inventory, including that a partial token (末6位) is exposed — useful sensitivity context. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or whether revoked/expired devices are included in the listing, which matters for a device list.

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?

One dense sentence plus a redirect clause; the resource and returned fields come first, and the cross-reference to revoke_my_device is last. The '登录;' prefix is a terse, slightly cryptic fragment that a reader must interpret, but the rest earns its space.

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 input parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing what comes back, and it does so by enumerating exactly the fields returned. Missing only secondary details such as ordering and whether the list is paginated or includes already-revoked devices.

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 nothing for the description to disambiguate; the 4 baseline applies. The description correctly spends its words on output content instead of inventing input details.

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 names a specific verb (列/list) and a precise resource (本人 agent/CLI 设备), then enumerates the returned fields: name, client, last 6 chars of token, and created/last-used/expired/revoked timestamps. It also names the sibling revoke_my_device as the mutation counterpart, so an agent can distinguish the two. The leading '登录;' fragment is a prerequisite note rather than purpose, which slightly muddies the opening.

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?

'登录' implies an authenticated-session prerequisite, and the trailing 'revoke_my_device吊销' redirects the agent to the right sibling when a revoke is actually wanted. However there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus other device/account-related tools, and no exclusion conditions; usage is only implied.

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