list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds the important behavioral detail that only allowlist-visible devices are returned. This surpasses the annotations by revealing the filtering behavior, though it does not explain edge cases like an empty allowlist or errors.

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 a single, focused sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only list tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. There is no missing information about inputs or outputs, and the allowlist qualification is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed since the function takes no input.

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 clarifies the scope ('visible through the configured device allowlist'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_physical_channels and get_device_details. It clearly communicates what the tool returns.

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 implies that this tool is for listing only allowlisted devices, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions beyond the allowlist. There is no explicit reference to sibling tools or conditions requiring their use.

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