acs_get_rpc_methods

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

No annotations are provided, so the description's verb '获取' (get) indicates a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks deeper 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant information, fully front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity—one well-documented parameter and no output schema—the description sufficiently covers what it does. It could mention the return format or prerequisites, but for a simple list-returning getter, it is almost complete.

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 already describes the 'sn' parameter as '设备序列号' (device serial number) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: '获取设备支持的 RPC 方法列表' (get the list of RPC methods supported by the device), using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like acs_get_parameters or acs_get_script, which target different resource types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as device connectivity, or contrast it with other similar tools. The sibling list is provided but not referenced.

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