bmahs_devices

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

The annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the fields returned (id, display name, natural language description, type, status, occupant, connection address), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose any behavioral caveats such as pagination, performance, or data freshness, which would be relevant for a list tool. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and return fields, then gives a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient and scannable.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. It includes the key fields and the usage context. It does not address edge cases like empty results or the need to refresh the discovery list, but given the presence of a bmahs_refresh sibling, the 'currently discovered' phrasing implies current state. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning the 'type' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its purpose (filter by category) and examples (light, display). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter; it does not even mention filtering. Since the schema already provides complete parameter semantics, the baseline of 3 is maintained.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '列出当前发现的全部 BMAHS 设备' (list all discovered BMAHS devices) and enumerates the returned fields (id, display name, description, type, status, occupant, address). It differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the 'first' tool for device selection and occupancy checks, distinguishing it from more specific operations like occupy, release, or describe.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: '选设备、查占用状态时先用这个工具' (use this tool first when selecting a device or checking occupancy status). This tells the agent when to start, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The guidance is clear and action-oriented, though it lacks the explicit sibling differentiation seen in the highest example.

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