rtt_list_devices

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

No annotations provided, so description is the sole source. It states 'List' which implies read-only, but no details on potential exceptions (e.g., no devices), performance, or security. Barely adequate for a simple listing tool.

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?

Single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every word adds value, and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the expected return format (e.g., list of device names) or behavior when none found, but for a simple list, this is sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds context beyond the schema by specifying the scope ('J-Link debuggers connected to the host'), which helps the agent understand what is being listed.

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?

Description clearly states 'List available J-Link debuggers connected to the host.' The verb 'List' and resource 'J-Link debuggers' are specific. Sibling tools like jlink_connect or rtt_read confirm this is a distinct listing operation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied to run before connecting, the description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or disclaimers. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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