simpleinout_list_beacons

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It states 'List all beacons' and specifies 'GET /beacons', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not clarify scope (e.g., all beacons across all companies or current company), authentication, or any other behavioral details. The word 'all' is ambiguous in a multi-tenant context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the API endpoint and argument explanations. Each section earns its place, with no unnecessary fluff or repetition of the schema.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and parameters, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks clarity on the scope of 'all beacons' and does not mention any context about filtering, sorting, or company scoping that might be relevant given the sibling tools. This leaves some ambiguity for correct invocation.

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 provides only parameter names, types, and defaults with no descriptions. The description adds 'page: Page number' and 'page_size: Results per page', giving meaningful semantics that help the agent understand pagination. It does not go deeper into default values or indexing, but it covers the basics effectively.

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 opens with 'List all beacons (Bluetooth presence beacons)' — a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It also disambiguates 'beacons' as Bluetooth presence beacons, distinguishing it from other list tools for roles, fences, etc.

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 implies usage for listing beacons but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over sibling list tools. Sibling tools like list_fences and list_networks exist, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The usage context is clear only from the resource name.

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