List Wan Configs

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a non-mutating read, so the safety profile is covered by annotations. The description adds the scope (all WAN ports, and which attributes are included), which is useful, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or permission requirements.

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 sentence with the resource front-loaded and the covered fields compactly parenthesized. No filler, no redundancy; every token carries 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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, read-only, output schema present to describe the return shape), so the description does not need to cover return values. It is nearly sufficient, with the only gap being the absence of any routing cue distinguishing it from get_wan_status and the other list_*_configs 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain beyond what the schema already conveys; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical field list describes the resource, not parameters, and is not needed to invoke the tool.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('列出所有 WAN 口配置') plus an enumeration of the returned field categories (IP/接入方式/网卡/VLAN/速率). An agent knows exactly what is listed. However, it does not differentiate itself from the related siblings such as get_wan_status, list_lan_configs, or get_ipv6_wan_config, so the boundary is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: enumerating the fields tells the agent roughly what the tool is good for, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no condition for choosing it over get_wan_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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