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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds the login requirement and clarifies the kind of data returned (device name, client, token suffix, timestamps). This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, though it does not elaborate on pagination or response format.

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 compact, front-loaded sentence conveys scope, auth requirement, output fields, and the relevant alternative. Every segment contributes meaning and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is complete: it states the required auth, the exact resource scope, the fields returned, and the related destructive action in the sibling list. No output schema exists, but the description covers the return contents sufficiently.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description still adds value by enumerating the output fields, which helps the agent understand what calling the tool will yield. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 the verb '列出' and the specific resource: the current user's agent/CLI attached devices, including the fields returned. It is distinct from other list tools by scoping to 'current user' and specifying device/token context, and it also names the sibling revoke_my_device as a related but different operation.

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?

It explicitly notes the login requirement as a prerequisite and direct the agent to revoke_my_device when the goal is to revoke a device rather than list them. This gives a clear when-to-use vs. alternative signal with no guesswork.

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