list_device_names

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe read nature. The description adds the scope (terminal names/remarks) but does not disclose any additional behavior such as pagination, ordering, or lack of filtering. This meets the lower bar given the annotation coverage.

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 short phrase that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. Every word is informative and there is no filler or redundant content.

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 is a parameterless read-only list operation with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the brief description is largely sufficient. It could have named sibling tools for differentiation, but that is not critical for invoking such a simple tool.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed because there are no parameters to document.

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 uses a specific verb ('列出' / list) and a specific resource ('终端名称/备注' / terminal names/remarks). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_terminal_list (which likely returns full terminal information) and set_device_name (which writes a device name).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_terminal_list or set_device_name. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred.

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