List Device Names

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes that this is a non-destructive read, so the description carries a lower burden. The phrase 名称/备注 adds a small amount of context by indicating the payload contains both device names and remarks, but nothing about scope, ordering, or pagination is disclosed.

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 with zero waste and the key noun front-loaded. It is arguably too terse to be optimally useful, but it is structurally clean and earns its length.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a no-argument list tool with many overlapping list_* siblings, the definition is only minimally viable: it never clarifies scope or how it relates to get_terminal_list.

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 document and the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, leaving no ambiguity to resolve.

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 (列出/list) and resource (终端名称/备注 – device names/remarks), which is more informative than the bare title. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_terminal_list or set_device_name, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 like get_terminal_list or set_device_name, nor any prerequisite or context. The agent gets no routing guidance at all.

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