pms_stations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden alone; it does disclose the no-login requirement and enumerates the returned attributes, which is real value. However it is ambiguous about whether only currently usable stations are returned or all stations with a status field, and it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or refresh behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence with the resource identified first and the return payload and auth note appended. No filler, though the parenthetical packaging is slightly dense compared to a clean clause list.

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 one-optional-param listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers identity, scope, returned fields, and the login-free property. The only genuine gap is clarifying the status semantics (all stations vs. available-only) and any ordering.

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 100% and the single optional campus parameter already includes example values (「云栖」/「云谷」). The description mentions campus only as a returned field, not as a filter, so it adds no semantics beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies for a one-parameter 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 concrete resource — 图书馆自助文印（联创云打印）网点 — and a read-only listing action (可用网点列表), plus the fields it returns (校区、位置、状态、支持纸型). It is clearly distinct from the sibling pms_print / pms_cancel / pms_jobs tools, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before pms_print, and '无需登录' adds a practical precondition. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-alternative guidance and no statement of what to do with the results.

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