Search Devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent, and openWorld hints. The description adds a key behavioral constraint: patch status only supports 'missing'. This is valuable beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and lists search criteria efficiently. Every word contributes meaning; no fluff or 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 9 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description covers core search fields but misses managed, group_id, limit, and output_format. Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, but the description is not fully complete for parameter understanding.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must add meaning. It explains hostname_contains, ip_address, tag, severity, and patch_status but omits managed, group_id, limit, and output_format. Only about half of parameters are semantically enriched, which is insufficient for full clarity.

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 clearly states it searches devices by hostname, IP, tag, severity, or patch status. The verb 'search' and resource 'Automox devices' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_devices' or 'advanced_device_search', though the listed filters imply a filtered search.

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 a search with specific filters, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for more complex queries.

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