list_network_sharing_controls

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

The description adds domain context by explaining what 'network sharing controls' refers to (secondary routing/hotspot control), which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. For a zero-parameter list operation, this is adequate behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention response format or whether all entries are returned.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then clarifies scope in parentheses. There is zero waste and no redundant information.

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 simple read-only list tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. It explains what the tool lists and the domain. The only gap is lack of usage guidance, but that is already factored into the usage_guidelines score.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and no parameter information is missing. The parenthetical clarification adds useful semantic context about what is being listed.

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 identifies the resource '网络分享控制' (network sharing controls), with a parenthetical clarification '二级路由/热点控制' that explains the domain. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_wan_configs or list_lan_configs.

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. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or relationship to other tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and description.

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