device_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It explicitly declares the tool as read-only ('只读'), reveals that results include last heartbeat and online status, and discloses that rejected/revoked devices are omitted from the list. This gives the agent critical behavioral expectations beyond the schema.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then states filters, response content, an inclusion rule, and read-only nature. Every clause earns its place with no redundant phrasing.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, filters, key returned fields, and the verified-device scope. It is missing details like pagination, default behavior with no filters, and response format, but the tool is simple enough that these are not critical gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tenant, kind, and capability filters. The description's '按租户/类型/能力过滤' adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: '设备清单查询' (device inventory query), and immediately scopes it with the G9 discovery surface and filter dimensions (tenant/type/capability). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like device_register, device_data_query, and device_data_push, which target different operations.

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 when to use the tool: to query a filtered device inventory with heartbeat/online status, and it states an important exclusion rule (only verified devices appear). However, it does not explicitly contrast it with related tools like device_data_query or device_register, nor state conditions for when NOT to use it.

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