probe_selected_device_read_only

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond the structured fields: it uses the vendor program's TCP port 1000 channel, verifies the scanned MAC before returning, opens no session persistence because it disconnects each time, and performs no writes. It does not explain what happens when the MAC check fails or the protocol times out, which matters for a tool that opens a network connection.

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?

It is a single dense clause chain with the target front-loaded and no filler. The phrase '核对扫描 MAC 后返回' (verify the scanned MAC, then return) is slightly compressed in a way that leaves the comparison baseline ambiguous, which costs a point on structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a hardware-probing tool, this definition leaves out failure and retry behavior (MAC mismatch, unreachable port 1000) and does not state whether the selection must be made through one of the selection tools. Those omissions are what an agent would need most when deciding whether to call 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?

With zero parameters there is nothing to disambiguate, and the description correctly signals that no inputs are required: it acts on the device already established as the selection. That is the right baseline for a zero-argument tool.

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 names a specific action (read version, status and MAC), names the target (the device the user has already selected), and names the protocol path (the vendor program's TCP 1000 interface). It is clear enough to separate this tool from the write, scan and parameter tools, but it never names its closest sibling, probe_device_read_only, to draw an explicit boundary.

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 implies the precondition that a device must already be selected, and the claim 'does not write parameters' implies which write tool an agent should use instead. It gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to an alternative tool (for example, probe_device_read_only for an unselected or arbitrary device), so the choice is left to inference from the name alone.

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