acs_get_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does disclose the mechanism (calls GetParameterValues via a temporary script), which implies a read operation and transient artifact creation. However, it omits cleanup behavior, error conditions, and return format details.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasteful words. The main purpose comes first, with implementation detail in parentheses, achieving maximum clarity in minimal space.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent receives or any limitations, but it only states the mechanism. It does not describe the return format, distinguish from similar tools like acs_get_config, or mention edge cases, leaving critical gaps for a 2-parameter get operation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters (sn and paramPath) with examples and context already provided. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond noting the temporary-script mechanism; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the explanation.

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 starts with '获取设备参数值' (get device parameter values), a specific verb+resource combination that clearly states what the tool does. The parenthetical '通过临时脚本调用 GetParameterValues' adds implementation detail and distinguishes it from siblings like acs_set_parameters.

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?

The description implies usage for reading device parameter values but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like acs_get_config or acs_exec_raw. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided, so the agent must infer usage from the name and mechanism.

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