列出移动端真机

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that statuses are real-time and include connection and capability states, giving the agent expectations of freshness and scope. It does not contradict the annotations, and no side effects are implied.

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 that conveys the core action, scope, and output data with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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, parameterless read-only listing tool, the description covers the platforms, the object type (real devices), and the reported statuses. Minor omissions like explicit return shape or whether offline devices are included are acceptable given the straightforward use case and safety annotations.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%. Per the zero-parameter baseline, no additional parameter documentation is needed; the description correctly focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

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 clear verb ('列出' / list), the resource (mobile real devices), platform coverage (Android, iOS, HarmonyOS), and the data returned (connection status and capability status). It is easily distinguished from siblings like mobile_capture or mobile_interact, which perform actions rather than enumeration.

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 using it when you need an inventory of physical mobile devices and their live status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention exclusions such as emulator support. There are no sibling comparisons or 'use this instead of X' guidance.

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