get_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that the per-device shape is undocumented — which warns the agent not to assume a known return contract, but it says nothing about pagination, auth, or what the response includes.

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?

It is short, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, so the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. The deviceId detail appears with no framing sentence explaining what the tool returns first.

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?

This is a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back. It hints that the shape is undocumented and names deviceId, but never describes the list itself, making it inadequate for an agent that must decide whether to call it.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level meaning is missing.

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 never states what the tool does in verb+resource terms; it is a fragment that assumes the reader infers 'list devices' from the name. It only notes that the per-device shape is undocumented and that deviceId is the key field, which is metadata about the return value rather than a statement of purpose.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named among the many get_device_* siblings (get_device_settings, get_device_last_used, get_device_alarms). The remark that other device methods key off deviceId weakly implies this tool is where deviceId comes from, but that routing is left entirely to inference.

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