List Devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool does not check online status ('without checking whether they are currently online') and implies a read-only listing ('Show a quick inventory'). While it doesn't explicitly state side-effect-freedom or permissions, the nature of a read-only inventory is clear, so only a small gap remains.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and usage guidance is concise. The format is ideal.

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 simple list tool with no parameters and no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, output content, and distinguishing usage. The sibling distinction adds necessary context. No important information is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter info because there are none to describe. No deductions are needed.

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's function: 'Show a quick inventory of known micrOS devices' with specific fields listed. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `search_devices`, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use this to see what devices are known without checking whether they are currently online.' It also names the alternative tool and its use cases: 'Use `search_devices` when selecting a command target, finding a capability, or inspecting command signatures.'

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