list_charging_positions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about read-only nature, permissions, scoping, or return behavior. 'List' weakly implies a safe read, but nothing is disclosed explicitly.

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 bilingual line with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than being wasteful.

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 tool with two required, undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies almost nothing an agent needs to call it correctly. Required scope (which robot/map) is left entirely to the schema titles.

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% across 2 required params (robot_sn, map_id), and the description mentions neither. It does not explain which robot or map must be supplied, nor the expected identifier format, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List charging positions' / '列出充电点'), so an agent knows it enumerates charging positions. It gives no differentiation from plausible siblings like list_map_resources or list_robot_maps, so it falls short of 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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites beyond the required params being implicit. Only the most generic 'list' semantics are implied.

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