User Login Devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 列出 and scopes to the current session (当前用户), but discloses nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or how devices are populated. Thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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; nothing is wasted. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than complete.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameter set is documented. However, the description omits any session/auth context for the connection parameters and no annotation covers safety, leaving it only minimally viable.

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% (host, port, scheme, profile all documented in the schema), so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb (列出/list) and resource (登录设备/login devices) plus scope (当前用户/current user), so the agent knows exactly what is being returned. It does not reference or distinguish itself from related session siblings (login, logout, whoami, submit_auth_code), which keeps it from a 5.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. An agent cannot tell from this text when to reach for user_login_devices versus whoami or login.

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