org_device_statuses

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

With no annotations, the description provides pagination behavior (truncated flag, limit defaults) and explains how to handle truncated results. It also notes that org_id and target can be omitted for defaults. This is good for a read-only tool, though it does not discuss permissions or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-line summary and a structured 'Args:' list. Every sentence is informative, and there is no fluff.

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 the key behavioral aspects (pagination) and parameter semantics. However, without an output schema, it would benefit from describing the structure of the returned rows (e.g., fields like status, product type, count). The current mention of 'returned'/'limit'/'truncated' is useful but not fully complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains each parameter: org_id (omit for default), limit (max rows, pagination hints), and target (omit for default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description starts with '[READ]' and clearly states it retrieves org-wide device availability rolled up by status and product type. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'device_status' and 'device_inventory'.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it is for org-wide aggregated data, it does not compare with sibling tools such as 'device_inventory' or 'network_health_score'.

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