prtg_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered, and the '[READ]' prefix is largely redundant with that. The description does add the returned field set, which is modest useful context, but omits pagination, filtering behavior, 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?

Two compact parts: a front-loaded purpose with field list, then the single arg note. Nothing is padded, though the '[READ]' tag repeats what readOnlyHint already conveys.

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 simple read-only, single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition supplies purpose, returned fields, and parameter behavior. Adequate, though cross-tool disambiguation from prtg_sensors/prtg_groups is left implicit.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It does explain 'target' as a 'PRTG target name from config' and the behavior of omitting it (default), adding real meaning beyond the bare string|null 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?

States a clear verb+resource: 'List monitored PRTG devices'. The parenthetical field list (objid, device, host, status, group) further clarifies scope. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings prtg_sensors and prtg_groups via the resource noun, but does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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 no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many sibling list tools (prtg_sensors, prtg_groups, nodes_list). The only guidance is 'omit for the default', which concerns the parameter, not tool selection.

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