list_lan_configs

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the read-only nature. The description adds minimal extra context by specifying 'all', indicating the response includes every LAN port configuration without filtering. However, no further behavioral details such as pagination, order, or potential performance implications are provided.

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, concise phrase in Chinese that serves its purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it highly scannable and appropriate for its simple function.

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 simplicity of the tool (0 parameters, read-only annotation, and an existing output schema), the description is sufficient. The output schema defines the return structure, and the read-only annotation covers safety, so the description need not elaborate further. The scope ('all') is also clearly stated.

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 has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. Per the scoring rubric, a parameterless tool receives a baseline score of 4, as there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are none.

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 '列出所有 LAN 口配置' clearly states the action (list all) and the resource (LAN port configurations), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like list_wan_configs and list_vlan_configs by specifying 'LAN'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of user/workspace filtering, exclusions, or references to sibling tools like list_wan_configs. The intended context is only implied by the tool name and description.

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