all_relays_on

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it is fire-and-forget ('发完即走不等应答'), requires reading status to confirm, and internally uses a single SET_RELAY_MASK instruction. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent set expectations, though it omits failure/error handling 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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, execution behavior, and natural language aliases are covered in three short sentences without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the operation, execution semantics, and follow-up action (reading status). It is complete enough for correct selection and invocation, though minor details like default address or multi-device behavior are left to the schema.

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 the address parameter is already well-documented (range, discovery methods, broadcast address). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable given the schema handles it fully.

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 action ('一键吸合全部继电器' / one-click pull in all relays) and the resource (all relays), distinguishing it from siblings like all_relays_off and set_relays_by_mask. Natural language mappings ('全开', 'all on') reinforce the specific intent.

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?

It explains when to use this tool (for turning all relays on at once), advises to fire-and-forget and confirm via status read, and highlights speed advantage over per-channel operations. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the context makes substitution clear.

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