get_flow_control_lines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds only a UI navigation path (Smart Flow Control → Flow Control Lines), which is useful context but does not disclose other behavioral traits like response structure or scope (e.g., that it returns all lines). No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are immediate, and the UI path is appended as a useful parenthetical.

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 zero parameters, an output schema, and a readOnly annotation, the description is mostly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could explicitly state that it returns the entire current line configuration, but the name and UI path provide enough context.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameters. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4.

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 Chinese description uses a specific verb '获取' (get) and a clear resource '流控线路配置' (flow control line configuration), plus a UI navigation path '智能流控 → 流控线路'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_flow_control_line that perform mutations.

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?

Usage is implied: this is a read-only getter for flow-control line settings, and sibling set_flow_control_line is for changes. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions.

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