list_network_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral details: the tool is 'consolidated', query_type controls the shape of data, and details applies only to devices query. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying internal behavior and constraints, though it does not address potential side effects (none expected) or edge cases like filter combinations.

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 well-structured with a summary, a note on flexibility, an Args block listing all parameters, and a Returns line. It is appropriately sized for a tool with six parameters, and every line serves a purpose. It could be slightly tightened by removing the Returns line since an output schema exists, but it remains clear and readable.

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 tool with six optional parameters and flexible output, the description covers the main functionality, parameter semantics, and the special case of details=true. It does not specify how filters combine (e.g., AND vs OR) or what 'full inventory attributes' includes, but the output schema likely covers return values. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), making the description the sole source of parameter meaning. The approach documents each parameter with concrete examples and defaults, e.g., query_type: 'Type of inventory data to return ("devices", "groups", "all")' and filter_platform: 'Filter by platform (e.g., cisco_ios)'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds practical value.

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: 'List network devices and inventory information.' It further explains it provides flexible access to devices, groups, or both, which aligns with its name. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like send_config_commands or run_show_commands, making it easily differentiable.

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 gives clear context on what the tool is used for (inventory retrieval) and provides practical guidance like 'Use details=true for full device attributes.' It does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool or cite alternatives, but the one-liner on details and the consolidated nature imply usage scenarios. Sibling tool names reinforce distinction, though no explicit 'use X instead' is provided.

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