list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'List all devices' but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON array, list of objects). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of listing network devices and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like output format, error handling, or how the tool interacts with other device-related operations (e.g., filtering or sorting), leaving gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'includeRoutes' clearly documented as a boolean to include route information. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't mention parameters at all. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'all devices in the Tailscale network', providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'device_action' or 'manage_device_tags', which might also involve devices but serve different functions.

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. With siblings like 'get_network_status' or 'manage_device_tags', there's no indication of when listing devices is appropriate versus checking status or managing tags, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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