labels_list_devices_with_label

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full transparency burden. The description accurately implies a read-only operation but adds no further behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects, or error states). It is adequate for a simple list operation but minimal.

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, well-structured sentence containing all essential information. It is efficiently front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no redundant words.

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?

Considering the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, read-only output), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter semantics and usage context. The presence of an output schema helps, but the missing parameter guidance reduces completeness.

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 input schema has 0% parameter description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the parameter 'label_id' (e.g., format, example, or how to obtain it). The agent is left guessing the correct value, which is a critical deficiency for correct tool invocation.

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 specifies the action (list), the target resource (devices), and the condition (having the given label). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like labels_list_labels (lists labels) and labels_list_entities_with_label (lists entities, not devices), leaving no ambiguity about what it does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., label must exist), nor does it suggest when not to use it (e.g., for entities instead of devices). Given many similar sibling tools, explicit usage guidance is lacking.

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