List Devices for Policies

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the concept of 'blast-radius assessment,' giving operational context beyond annotations. No contradictions observed.

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 one well-structured sentence with a clarifying dash, front-loads the core action, and contains no redundant information. Excellent conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description covers purpose, usage timing, and read-only nature. It lacks mention of output_format options and the structure of the policies array, but overall is adequate.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'policy UUID' without detailing the input parameters or the output_format field. This leaves agents to infer schema details, providing insufficient parameter-level guidance.

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 targeted by policies via UUID, and explicitly frames it as a 'blast-radius assessment' before policy changes, making the purpose specific and differentiating from sibling tools like list_devices.

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 provides a clear usage context ('before executing or changing a policy') and marks the tool as read-only, guiding safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternative tools, missing full differentiation guidance.

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