get_release_interfaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description does add one genuine behavioral fact: it performs static metadata query without instantiating or invoking the original software's communication methods. That is useful but narrow — with annotations already this rich and an output schema present, the marginal value is modest rather than substantial.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the negative constraint. The semicolon join is slightly dense but nothing is wasted.

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?

There is an output schema, so return values need not be explained, which relieves some burden. Still, the undefined parameter and the undefined scope of 'interfaces' leave real gaps for a tool whose siblings include both network- and device-oriented discovery tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not: the sole parameter 'type_query' (default 'communication') is never mentioned. An agent cannot learn the accepted values or what 'communication' selects from either the schema or the description.

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?

States a verb ('查询' / query) and a resource ('主程序的静态接口元数据' / static interface metadata of the main program), which is more than a tautology. However, 'release interfaces' remains ambiguous — it is unclear whether these are software API surfaces, release/version interfaces, or something adjacent to the sibling 'list_network_interfaces'. No sibling is named to disambiguate.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_capabilities or list_network_interfaces. The only directional statement is a negative one about not instantiating or calling, which constrains behavior rather than guiding selection.

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