bmahs_describe

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description is consistent with that by saying '读取'. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (operations, security, self-description), but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as error conditions or whether missing devices produce failures.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource before listing the returned content, making it immediately scannable and information-dense.

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 one-parameter read-only introspection tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns. There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of operations, security, and self-description partially compensates, though it could mention what 'security' means or how failures are surfaced.

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 schema already documents the single parameter 'device' as '设备 id 或显示名' with 100% coverage, so the description needs to add little. The description's reference to '某台 BMAHS 设备' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail about formats or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('读取', read) with a specific resource ('某台 BMAHS 设备') and clearly enumerates the returned content: operations, security boundaries, and natural-language self-description. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like bmahs_call and bmahs_occupy.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not name alternatives or state conditions such as 'use before calling bmahs_call' or 'use to inspect device capabilities', leaving the agent to infer usage from the word 'describe'.

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