Search Devices

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description frankly reveals that the severity filter does not guarantee returned devices currently have outstanding patches at that severity, with a live statistic. It also clarifies that pending_patches is total count not scoped to severity. This transparency adds significant value and does not contradict annotations.

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 four sentences, each contributing essential information. The first sentence states purpose, the latter three provide critical behavioral context. No redundant text, though it is somewhat lengthy; the details justify the length.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description explains key filters but omits details on managed, group_id, limit, and output_format. It also does not describe the output structure or pagination. The behavioral warnings partially compensate, leaving some completeness gaps.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains hostname, IP, tag, severity (with behavioral detail), and patch_status (only 'missing'). However, parameters like managed, group_id, limit, and output_format are not described, leaving gaps. The provided explanations add meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states 'Search Automox devices' and lists specific filter criteria (hostname, IP, tag, severity, patch status). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_devices and advanced_device_search by detailing the supported search parameters.

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 explicit guidance on using the tool for searching devices with various filters and includes important caveats about severity filter behavior and pending_patches interpretation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling list suggests different use cases.

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