Get Terminal Independent Speed Limits

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the output schema carries the return shape. The description adds only the UI location, not any extra behavioral context such as permissions or scoping, so it neither misleads nor enriches much.

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 short phrase plus a parenthetical location — nothing wasted and the resource is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being minimal, but not bloated or buried.

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 getter with an output schema and readOnlyHint, the description only needs to identify the resource, which it does. It could have clarified its relationship to the sibling speed-limit tools, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 (get / terminal independent speed limits) and adds a UI breadcrumb (智能流控 → 终端独立限速) that locates the feature. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like list_ip_speed_limits or list_mac_speed_limits, but the distinct resource name does most of that work.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., IP/MAC speed-limit getters or flow-control getters). Usage is only implied by the name; an agent gets no selection criteria.

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