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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world discovery tool. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it auto-selects when only one option exists and returns a list when disambiguation is needed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the critical usage instruction. No filler.

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?

The description covers when to call it and some return behavior, which is useful because there is no output schema. However, with 6 undocumented parameters and nested mode options, an agent still lacks enough detail to know how the optional inputs shape discovery results.

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 schema has 0% description coverage across 6 parameters, including nested mode options and identifier fields. The description mentions the resource categories but does not explain what tools.mode, devices.mode, directories.preview_limit, or the various IDs do.

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?

States a clear verb and the resources it discovers: workspaces, devices, shared folders, and tools. It also distinguishes itself from device_tool_call by positioning itself as the prerequisite discovery step.

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?

Explicitly says to call this first before device_tool_call, and explains the selection/disambiguation behavior. That gives the agent a clear routing rule rather than leaving usage to inference.

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