List Protocols

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns (port hints, address model, data types, brand clues) and that it is a read-only listing operation implied by '列出'. It does not explicitly state side-effect absence, but the listing nature makes that evident.

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 four short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the main purpose, then summarizes return content, then gives actionable usage rules. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states what data comes back, how the agent should use it, and when to delegate to detect_device, leaving no important gap for correct invocation.

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 is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the output and decision context rather than parameter details that do not exist.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it lists the industrial protocols supported by this server and their capabilities. It further distinguishes itself from detect_device by stating that this tool answers 'which protocol should this device use' while detect_device handles protocol/port uncertainty.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: call this tool first when the protocol name is uncertain, and call detect_device when both protocol and port are uncertain. This directly routes the agent to the right sibling tool and states when not to rely on this tool.

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