Подключённые устройства

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does include the fact that the source is the DHCP/hotspot table and that it returns a device list with specific fields, which gives some transparency for a read-like operation. However, it does not state whether this is an active snapshot, sorted, or what telemetry/format the output is in – a moderate gap.

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 sentence that leads with the action (‘Список’), the resource (‘устройств’), the source table, and the relevant fields. No filler, no repeated annotation content, and the key scoping information is front-loaded.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (devices), from where (DHCP/hotspot), and the field set (MAC, IP, name, interface). One could argue for more behavior details, but the agent has enough to call the tool correctly and interpret a simple list result.

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 no parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description compensates by listing the output fields (MAC, IP, name, interface), which adds meaning to what the agent can expect from the result, given that the empty input schema offers no constraint.

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?

‘Список устройств из таблицы DHCP/hotspot’ clearly identifies the resource (devices) and the action (list). It specifies the source table and the returned fields (MAC, IP, name, interface), which makes the purpose unambiguous and distinct from most read-only siblings.

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 states what the tool lists, but does not describe when to use it over alternatives like list_wifi_clients or list_dhcp_reservations. There is no guidance on situation or conditions, no hint that a device list might be the broad view, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and core directory.

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