List Mac Speed Limits

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds nothing on top of that — no note on output scope, ordering, whether rules can be empty, or pagination. For a list tool the annotation carries most of the load, but the description contributes no extra behavioral 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?

A single front-loaded clause with no padding or filler. It is efficient, though terse enough to read more like a fragment than a complete instruction.

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?

For a trivial zero-param read-only list with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient and does not need to explain return values. It nonetheless leaves an agent without any cue about what the list contains or how it relates to the MAC speed-limit add/delete siblings.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing here but nothing is missing either.

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 phrase '列出 MAC 限速规则' names a clear verb (list) and resource (MAC speed limit rules), which distinguishes it from add_mac_speed_limit, delete_mac_speed_limit, and list_ip_speed_limits. It is not a tautology of the tool name, but it stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings.

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 indication of when to use this versus list_ip_speed_limits or get_terminal_independent_speed_limits, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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