zhiqi_device_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states '不会输出原始硬件信息' (does not output raw hardware information), which is a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the tool name. While it does not explicitly state it is read-only, the verb '查看' (view) and the nature of a fingerprint summary imply non-destructive 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 two sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the important behavioral caveat (no raw output) is placed second. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what it does and the use case. It could optionally describe the format of the summary, but that is not necessary for correct invocation. The lack of an output schema means the description does not need to explain return values.

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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). Since there are no parameters to document, the description correctly does not address them, meeting the baseline of 4 for tools with no parameters.

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: '查看本机硬件指纹摘要' (view local hardware fingerprint summary), with a specific use case: '用于重装补发的同机判定' (for reinstalling/reissuing same-machine determination). It is distinct from siblings by being a read-only informational tool, and the purpose is unambiguous.

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 gives a clear context of use (reinstallation/reissue scenario), which helps an agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, leaving some inference needed. Still, the stated purpose provides strong usage guidance.

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