ts_devices

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

The description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the scope filter is applied client-side because the API lacks server-side filtering. It also notes the output includes a _meta envelope. With no annotations provided, this covers the main behavioral expectations, though pagination or rate limits are not mentioned.

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 two sentences: first gives a clear, bullet-like list of output fields; second explains the optional parameter and output format. Every word adds value with 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?

Given one optional parameter and an output schema (existence known but not shown), the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and output format well. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a list tool with a single optional param, this is minor.

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 schema describes scope as a DD-278 filter with enumerated values, but the description adds extra context: it explains the mapping is configurable via environment variables and that filtering is client-side, with 'public' unsupported. This significantly enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the tool lists all devices and enumerates the fields included (hostname, OS, IP, etc.). The name 'ts_devices' contrasts with singular sibling 'ts_device', and no ambiguity exists about what the tool 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 and sibling context imply this is the primary list-all tool, distinct from ts_device (single device) and mutation tools. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is given. Still, the context is clear enough.

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