scan_devices

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does so by outlining a three-step execution flow: broadcast discovery, query IO channels and modules, then register and persist. It also discloses the side effect of persistence and that it enables subsequent control. It could mention re-run behavior or error handling, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 concise and well-structured. It leads with the primary action, then uses a numbered list to explain the execution flow. Every sentence earns its place, and the prerequisite note is essential. No redundant language.

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 (no params, no output schema), the description is quite complete. It explains what happens step-by-step and why it's necessary. It doesn't specify outcomes if no devices found, but that's a minor gap. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has no properties, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't, so it's adequate.

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 purpose: '扫描所有连接上的在线设备并自动注册' (scan all connected online devices and automatically register). It specifies the action (scan), resource (connected devices), and outcome (registration). It also distinguishes itself by noting it's a prerequisite: '首次使用时必须先调用此工具'.

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 clear usage context: it must be called first before use, and after scanning, devices are controllable via address + loop number. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like auto_discover, but the prerequisite instruction provides strong guidance on when to use.

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