檢視遠端裝置工具

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds that it reads 'actual tool schemas', which is useful context beyond annotations, but it does not disclose anything about return structure, latency, or device availability requirements. With annotations lowering the bar, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The purpose and the scoping parameter are both present immediately, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 low-complexity read tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the core operation and parameter meaning. However, given the many sibling tools that also reference devices, it omits the routing context needed to choose it over list_paired_devices or call_device_tool, leaving a gap for an agent selecting among alternatives.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by calling the 'device' parameter a 'named paired device', implying the value should come from list_paired_devices. But it provides no format details (e.g., device ID vs name) or examples, so the compensation is only partial.

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 ('Read') and resource ('tool schemas of a named paired device'), making it distinguishable from list_paired_devices (lists devices) and call_device_tool (invokes a tool). However, it does not explicitly clarify that it returns the schemas rather than simply listing tool names, which would better differentiate it from a generic list operation.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools. It does not mention that this should be called before call_device_tool to discover available tools, nor does it state any prerequisites such as the device first needing to be paired or online. Usage is only implied by the verb and resource.

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