list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool lists all devices with type and location, which is a read-only behavior by implication. However, it does not explicitly state safety (read-only, no side effects), potential performance implications (e.g., large result sets), or any authentication requirements. This is adequate for a simple list operation but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, clear sentence in Chinese that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains zero filler words and directly states the purpose and key output fields. This is exemplary conciseness.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is fully complete. It states exactly what the tool does and what information is included. There is no ambiguity or missing context for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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 100% coverage (vacuous truth). The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for zero parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but none is needed. It also hints at output content (type and location), which is not parameter semantics but does enrich the tool's usage context.

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 verb (list), resource (all devices), and scope (digital twin scene), and specifies that type and location are included. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_metrics or get_metric_history, which focus on metrics and history, not device enumeration.

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 usage context ('in digital twin scene') and it's obvious when to use this tool (to retrieve a device roster). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool list makes the differentiation clear. This earns a 4 as clear context with no exclusions.

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