crosspad_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description agrees with all of them. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: data source (crosspad-hil daemon), stable ID semantics, usb_mode values, port role meanings, the v9 `kind` compatibility meaning, and the implicit device selection rule. There is no contradiction.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: it states the purpose, defines the output fields, explains value ranges, and clarifies the special `selected` and `kind` semantics. There is no filler or repetition of schema contents.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and there are no parameters, the description sufficiently covers invocation semantics, output field interpretation, and device-selection behavior. It provides all context an agent needs to use this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 the input schema is empty, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly focuses on output semantics rather than inventing parameter information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List connected CrossPads as seen by the crosspad-hil daemon.' It enumerates the returned fields and possible values, making the tool's function unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling build/flash/repo tools that perform actions rather than listing devices.

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 explains that `selected` is set when exactly one device would be chosen implicitly by every other tool, which tells the agent this tool is the way to discover which device other crosspad commands will target. It does not explicitly say 'use this before crosspad_flash' or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for device-selection decisions.

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