list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for conveying behavioral traits. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, whether authentication is required, or if it reads from a live network vs. a cached inventory. It is adequate but not enriched beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word adds value: it names the action, the object, and the included fields. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the scope (inventory switches), the data returned (platform and notes), and the action. It does not explicitly state that the list is unfiltered, but that is reasonably implied by 'available in the inventory'.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add anything beyond what the schema (which is empty) already conveys.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('switches available in the inventory'), with additional detail about what is shown ('platform and notes'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific device data (e.g., get_interfaces, get_version), making its 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?

The description implies usage context: it is the tool for enumerating switches in the inventory. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_inventory_hw, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage is inferred from the wording rather than stated outright.

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