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 covered. The description adds useful scope context by saying it returns all online devices and the specific fields exposed, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or rate limits; with annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that packs the purpose and returned scope without filler. Every part earns its place.

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 that this is a read-only list tool with annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies enough scope to call it correctly. It is not complete enough for a 5 because it does not route the agent away from sibling tools like get_terminal_log.

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%, so limit, offset, and ip_type are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('获取终端监控列表') and enumerates the returned fields (IP/MAC/hostname/traffic/connection count), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_terminal_log, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternative tools. The description only identifies what the list contains; it leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate, matching the calibration for MID usage_guidelines=2.

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