List Devices

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the fact that it returns detailed info. It does not disclose limitations like pagination, rate limits, or handling of large result sets.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and immediately providing usage guidance and an alternative. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has 6 optional parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and alternative. It could mention pagination (limit) but is otherwise complete for a list tool.

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%, but the description only hints at filtering by 'management/policy status' (likely mapping to policy_status and managed parameters). It does not explain group_id, limit, include_unmanaged, or output_format, leaving significant gaps for parameter understanding.

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 devices with detailed per-device information including hostname, OS, policy status, and patch status. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('devices'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming an alternative for aggregate stats.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (exploration/investigation) and when not to (for aggregate stats, use device_health_metrics). However, it does not address other sibling tools like search_devices or device_detail, which could be relevant alternatives.

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