get_function_modules

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

The description discloses no behavioral details beyond the query purpose. With no annotations, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, the return format, or error conditions. The verb '查询' implies a read, but explicit disclosure is missing.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without extraneous content.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose but omits the return format and does not clarify why the address parameter is optional. These gaps are significant in the absence of an output 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?

The input schema fully documents the address parameter, including range and discovery methods, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 queries whether specific functional modules (storage, RTC clock) exist on a specified device. It uses a specific verb ('查询') and identifies a concrete resource, but does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like read_status.

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 or when to prefer alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The schema later mentions scan_devices/list_devices, but that is not in the tool description.

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