list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is clear. The description adds what the output includes but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, or rate limits. Given the low complexity, this is adequate but minimal beyond annotations.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's action and output. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema existing, the description sufficiently lists what information is returned. No additional context is needed for a straightforward list operation.

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 zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. Per rubric, '0 params = baseline 4'. The description does not attempt to explain nonexistent parameters, which is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all configured air-Q devices', and lists the returned fields (names, addresses, locations, groups). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'get_device_info' which likely targets a single device.

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 use for retrieving all devices but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_device_info' for a specific device, or provide exclusions. With zero parameters, usage is straightforward, but no guidance is given.

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