Device software

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the optional-filter behavior and says nothing about result volume, the limit cap, or ordering, which would have been useful on top of the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action, target resource, and optional narrowing stated in order. No filler or 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?

For a simple read-only, non-nested tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns at a high level. It omits any mention of the 25-default/100-max result cap behavior, which is the only real gap.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the limit range and the literal-substring matching semantics for name_contains. The description's phrase 'package name' is slightly looser than the schema's 'software name' and adds no new detail, so the baseline 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 (software installed on a device) plus the optional filter, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like get_device or search_devices. It does not name a sibling or explicitly contrast its scope with get_device, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Usage is only implied by the resource (software inventory for a known hostname), so an agent must infer that hostname is required and that this is the inventory view rather than the device-detail view.

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