connected_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word "Liste" implies a non-mutating read, which is meaningful given there are no annotations, but the description says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the list is a live scan or a cached snapshot. The field enumeration is largely redundant with the existing output schema.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the resource first and the returned fields second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 parameterless, read-only listing tool with an output schema that already defines the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any usage context or distinction from dhcp_status.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies the call is filterless and returns all connected devices.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Liste des équipements connectés au réseau local") and enumerates the fields surfaced (MAC, hostname, IP, port). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like wifi_set_guest or nat_add_port_forward, though it does not explicitly position itself against the potentially overlapping dhcp_status, which may also report hosts.

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 no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and names no alternative. An agent must infer from the tool name alone whether this is the right call versus dhcp_status or wan_status when investigating network devices.

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