get_line_monitoring

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers safety, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the data is real-time and spans all WAN/LAN interfaces, which is useful. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like potential response size or latency, which is a minor 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?

The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action, and includes all necessary details without redundancy. It earns its place perfectly.

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 zero-parameter, read-only monitoring tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the scope (all WAN/LAN interfaces) and the nature of the data (real-time rates, connections, packet loss). No additional explanation is needed.

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 baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameter semantics, and it doesn't, which is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb (获取/get), the resource (线路监控/line monitoring), and the exact scope (所有 WAN/LAN 接口) with metrics (实时速率/连接数/丢包率). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_ipv6_line_detail or get_wan_status, which target different scopes or metrics.

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 clear context: it's for real-time monitoring of all WAN/LAN interfaces. This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of the highest score.

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