device_register

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so unusually well: it discloses that identity is verified via Ed25519, that the tool is fail-closed (forged signatures are rejected), and that rejections leave audit trails (留审计). This is security-critical behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not, however, cover idempotency, caller permissions, or error behavior beyond signature forgery.

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 entire description is a single dense sentence with zero filler — every clause earns its place: the operation, the security mechanism, the type constraint, and the capability purpose. The operation name is front-loaded ('设备上线注册'), with supplementary detail following in parentheticals. This is efficient, not under-specified.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested identity object, cryptographic verification, 4 parameters) and the absence of both an output schema and annotations, the description covers the operation's semantics and security model well but leaves gaps: no description of the success response or return format, no guidance on re-registration of an already-registered device, and no mention of caller authentication requirements. An agent can invoke it correctly but cannot predict what it will receive back.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add some semantic context beyond the schema by explaining why capabilities are declared (for dispatcher matching) and that the identity is Ed25519-verified, but it largely echoes the schema's enum for kind and the capability list description. The added meaning is moderate, so it stays at the baseline.

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+resource: '设备上线注册' (device online registration), and goes well beyond a bare label by specifying the verification mechanism (Ed25519), fail-closed behavior, device kinds, and the capability-matching purpose (派单方按能力匹配设备). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like device_list, device_data_query, and connector_register (which targets a different resource type).

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 the usage scenario: register a device when it comes online, declaring capabilities so a dispatcher can match it. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., connector_register for connectors, device_list for querying) and gives no when-not-to-use guidance. The context is inferable but not explicit.

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