acs_list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, permissions required, or other behavioral nuances. It adds some context by naming the data source (DeviceList.json), but stops short of full transparency about safety or behavior.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and the specific output fields. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word contributes meaningful information. No unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the core purpose and the data fields returned. It does not detail the exact output format (e.g., array vs object) or mention sorting/ordering, but for a basic listing tool this is a minor gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does without additional context.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly provides no parameter information since there are none, aligning with the input schema. It cannot add further semantic value beyond the baseline.

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: listing all known devices from a specific source (DeviceList.json) with the included fields (SN, CRURL, last connection time). The verb '列出' (list) is specific, and the resource 'devices' is unambiguous, distinguishing it from siblings like acs_find_device which targets specific devices.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need all known devices. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope ('all known devices') implicitly defines usage. A score above 3 is warranted as the context is immediately understandable without searching for alternatives.

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