Idm 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, and it discloses almost nothing: no pagination, no return shape, no note on whether inactive devices are excluded by default, and no explanation of the implicit 'group' context. Only the word 'list' weakly implies a read-only operation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight-but-complete.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves a critical gap: it scopes results to 'this group' without any parameter or explanation of how the group is identified. For a list tool with no annotations, that omission makes correct invocation ambiguous.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both brand_filter and include_inactive fully documented (including an example value), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('list the devices'), which is better than a tautology. However, the scope qualifier 'of this group' is never defined — there is no group parameter in the schema — and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from siblings like idm_device_status or idm_list_connections.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative among the 14 sibling tools. An agent gets no signal about when this list is preferable to idm_device_status or the other idm_list_* tools.

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