Get Remote Access Config

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this as a safe read operation, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds value by enumerating the returned fields with value semantics (0=关闭/1=开启, default ports 22/21/80/443), but says nothing about permissions, freshness, or whether a device must be online. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a clean bulleted field list. The field list largely mirrors the output schema, but the annotations of value meanings (0/1, defaults) give each line some justification, so waste is limited.

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-param, read-only getter with an output schema and explicit readOnlyHint, the description supplies all the context needed to invoke it correctly and interpret the result. The only real omission is routing guidance against the many setter siblings, which is a usage concern rather than a completeness one.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a correctly parameterless getter.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb+resource ('获取远程访问配置') and scopes it to SSH/Telnet/FTP/Web port status, so an agent immediately knows this is the read side of remote access. It does not explicitly name the sibling setters (enable_ssh, enable_telnet, set_web_ports, set_wan_web_access) that perform the mutations, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 never states when to call this tool versus the adjacent setters, nor any prerequisite or context. Usage is only inferable from the resource name, with no explicit guidance or exclusions.

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