List Devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact data fields returned (hostname, OS, policy status, patch status), which is helpful given the lack of an output schema. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise, consisting of only two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and key details, while the second provides 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 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description provides adequate high-level context (purpose, use case, sibling differentiation) but lacks details on parameters and expected output structure. It is minimally viable for an agent to guess usage, 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?

With a schema description coverage of 0% for 6 parameters, the description bears the burden of explaining parameter semantics. It only hints at two parameters ('filtered by management/policy status' corresponds to 'managed' and 'policy_status') but does not explain 'group_id', 'limit', 'include_unmanaged', or 'output_format'. This leaves the agent with insufficient guidance for using the parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and resource 'devices', and specifies that it provides detailed per-device information including hostname, OS, policy status, and patch status. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'device_health_metrics' by indicating that for aggregate statistics, that tool should be used.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to explore and investigate specific devices, optionally filtered by management/policy status.' It also explicitly provides an alternative tool for a different use case: 'For aggregate statistics and health metrics, use device_health_metrics instead.'

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