list_work_modes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read-only operation, not whether robot_sn must reference an existing robot, and not what the returned modes represent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a complete gap.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the bilingual duplication is redundant filler rather than efficiency, and the brevity stems from under-specification rather than tight writing.

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?

With no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate what a work mode is and what the list returns; it does neither. For a one-parameter tool it is technically callable, but an agent has no basis for interpreting results or prerequisites.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented robot_sn parameter, and it does not. The field name 'robot_sn' is self-explanatory enough to avoid a 1, but the description adds no meaning whatsoever beyond it.

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 '查询工作模式 / List work modes' is essentially a verbatim restatement of the tool name in two languages, adding no scope, no target entity detail, and no differentiation from the closely-related sibling describe_work_state. It conveys only that a listing happens.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as describe_work_state or list_robots. The only inference an agent can make is that it lists work modes for a robot.

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