read_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read operation that returns 16 input and 16 relay states, and implies non-destructiveness through the verb 'read' and the context of viewing status changes. It doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function, the second adds a practical usage note. No redundant or irrelevant content, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (16 inputs and 16 relays, on/off states) and provides a usage scenario. It doesn't describe the exact output structure, but that is not required given the simplicity and lack of 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 schema covers 100% of the parameter's semantics (address range, discovery methods, broadcast address). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond simply referencing '指定设备' (specified device), so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 uses a specific verb '读取' (read) and clearly identifies the resource: all inputs and relay current status of the specified device. It further specifies the scope (16 inputs + 16 relays), distinguishing it from sibling control and discovery tools.

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 by stating it reads current status and suggests using it after control operations to view state changes. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear and relevant given the sibling list of control tools.

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