list_devices

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating safe, read-only access. The description adds the specific fields returned and filtering capability. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, or authorization requirements. Given the annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides adequate but minimal added 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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose, lists key return fields, and mentions filtering. Every part is essential, with no wasted words. It is highly efficient 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, the description covers the essential aspects: it lists devices with key fields and supports filtering. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, it lacks details on default ordering, pagination, or maximum results. Still, it is mostly complete for a straightforward listing tool.

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%, so each parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any new semantic information beyond the schema. It mentions '支持过滤' but this is already evident from the parameters. Therefore, baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '列出设备' (list devices) and specifies the fields returned: name, did, model, online status, home room. It also mentions filtering support. This effectively communicates the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like get_device_spec or get_device_status which target 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings. The description implies it is for general device listing with filters, but does not clarify scenarios where other tools (e.g., get_device_statistics) would be more appropriate. The context from sibling names offers implicit differentiation, but explicit guidance is missing.

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