get_terminal_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the scope ('all online devices') and the fields returned (IP/MAC/hostname/traffic/connections). However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or whether the list reflects real-time data, which would be useful context.

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, information-dense sentence. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource ('获取终端监控列表') followed by the key return fields. Every word earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly indicates the scope (all online devices) and the returned fields, while the schema covers pagination and IP version parameters. No critical context is missing for a list-reading operation.

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 100% (limit, offset, ip_type all have descriptions). The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what the schema already states. Per the rubric, high schema coverage earns a baseline of 3, and the description does not compensate with additional semantic detail.

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 states the tool's function: '获取终端监控列表' (get terminal monitoring list), and specifies the exact data returned: '所有在线设备 IP/MAC/主机名/流量/连接数' (all online devices IP/MAC/hostname/traffic/connection count). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_terminal_log or get_arp_log by emphasizing it's a monitoring list of current online devices with traffic stats.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states what it does without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or comparative use cases. For example, it does not clarify whether to use this over get_terminal_log for historical logs or get_connection_table for connection details.

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