read_device_parameters

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent read (readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false), so the description's job is to disclose operational context – and it does, with device-family prerequisites, firmware/parameter-version checks, the 1–20 code cap, and 16/32-bit first-word addressing support. Only the transport-selection behavior between TCP and serial is left implicit.

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 action and its scope are front-loaded in the first clause, with prerequisites following in compact semicolon-separated segments. It is dense but every clause carries operational meaning; the device-family abbreviations (AN, CM55) are the only slight readability cost.

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 no explanation, and the device-family preconditions are well covered. However, for a tool with three parameters and zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves the caller unable to determine what port and transport should be from the text alone.

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 carries the full burden, but it never mentions the port, transport or codes parameters by name in a way that maps to the schema. It does convey the 1–20 bound on codes and hints at serial usage for CM55, but port (default COM7) and the selected_tcp vs serial enum are left entirely unexplained.

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 a specific resource (功能码/function code attributes, limits, names and values from the device's online catalog), and caps the batch at 1–20 codes. It also implicitly differentiates itself from catalog-based siblings by stating 不依赖导出工程 (does not rely on an exported project), though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Strong pre-call guidance is given per device family: AN requires MAC verification, CM55 requires select_serial_device first plus verification of serial binding, board number and platform, and both require checking parameter version and firmware. What is missing is an explicit statement of when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to pick instead (for example search_device_parameters for lookup-only cases).

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