Idm List Parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List ... without their values' usefully characterizes the payload as paths only and implies a read-only operation, but there is no statement about permissions, error behavior on ambiguous substrings, or result size/pagination limits.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing qualifier ('without their values') is positioned at the end where it does the most differentiating work. Nothing needs trimming or front-loading.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only listing tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to idm_get_parameters/idm_get_value, which an agent must infer from the phrase 'without their values'.

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%: `device` (root, full name, or unambiguous substring) and `prefix` (path-prefix restriction, with example) are both documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a device's parameter paths'), plus the key scope modifier 'without their values', which implicitly contrasts it with the sibling idm_get_parameters. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names the sibling it differs from.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the lightweight option when values are not needed, since 'without their values' contrasts with a values-returning sibling. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, and no mention of how ambiguity in the `device` substring is handled.

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