list_device_parameter_snapshots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's one real addition is 不联系设备, which confirms no device I/O occurs — meaningful for an agent deciding whether it needs the hardware online, but a small increment rather than rich behavioral context.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the output contents and the offline caveat. Nothing is redundant.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema that already documents return shape, the definition covers purpose and offline behavior adequately. What is missing is any hint about result volume, pagination, ordering, or an empty-result case — the main gap an agent would hit when calling it.

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% and the single parameter (limit, default 50) is never mentioned in the description, so it is unclear whether it caps the number of returned snapshots or acts as a page size, nor what happens when the limit is exceeded. The word 数量 refers to a returned field, not to the limit parameter, so it does not compensate.

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 gives a specific verb (列出 / list) plus the exact resource (本地实机参数备份 / local on-device parameter snapshots) and even enumerates what each entry carries: identity, scope, time, and count. That is enough to distinguish it from create/get/compare snapshot siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 clause 不联系设备 (does not contact the device) implicitly tells the agent this is a local, offline enumeration rather than a live device read such as read_device_parameters. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_device_parameter_snapshot or compare_device_parameter_snapshots, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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