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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the operation is read-only and that one branch means '零出站登记' (zero outbound registration), which is genuinely useful behavioral context about side effects. It stops short of describing the shape or size of the returned map, or whether discoveries/registrations are needed before the map is populated.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler — the read-only qualifier comes first, then the resource, then the enumeration of outcomes. The slash-and-parenthesis enumeration is dense and slightly hard to parse, which keeps it from a 5.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the entire burden of explaining what comes back. It sketches the return categories but does not define them, so an agent knows the tool's topic without knowing how to interpret 'desktop 链' versus 'generic 直连链' in the response.

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 parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the scope is all registered task codes with no filtering arguments available.

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 action ('只读返回' — returns read-only) and a specific resource ('动作表选路图' — action-table routing map), plus the unit of granularity (per registered task code). An agent can tell it produces a routing classification, not metrics or config. It loses a point because the three routing outcomes ('desktop 链 / generic 直连链 / 无 verified 链') are domain jargon that is named but never defined.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no mention of the sole sibling wb_server_info as an alternative or complement. The only usage signal is implicit in the words '只读返回' — that it is a safe inspection call — which the agent must infer rather than being told.

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