list_supported_devices

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description needs only add context beyond that. It adds the detail that the tool returns 'declared connection interfaces', which clarifies the type of information included. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentence (11 words) that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It states exactly what is listed and includes the key qualifier 'declared' to indicate the nature of the returned data. No further context is necessary.

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, so schema coverage is 100% by definition. The description does not need to explain parameters; the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool lists supported device models and their declared connection interfaces, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('supported device models'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_visa_instruments (which enumerates connected instruments) and identify_instrument (which identifies a single device).

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 for discovering device model capabilities but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives. There is no mention of when to choose this over list_visa_instruments or how it fits into a connection workflow, though the name and purpose make the basic intent clear.

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