hwid_devices_list_all

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

Annotations already declare this a safe read operation, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the filters rely on expensive operators such as LIKE and can negatively impact database performance. This performance caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious trait the description should carry.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. The performance warning earns its place; only a brief scope clause is missing to make it 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?

For a read-only list tool with 6 parameters including nested filter/sorting objects and no output schema, the description covers the filter cost but omits return/pagination behavior and the structure of the nested parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps given the schema's low description coverage.

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 only 33% (size and start documented; filters, sorting, filterModes, globalFilterMode undocumented). The description mentions 'filters' and their cost but does not explain the filter/sorting structure, valid filter ids, or what filterModes/globalFilterMode do, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Get HWID devices" states a clear verb+resource, so the purpose is understandable, but it does not distinguish this from the sibling hwid_devices_list despite the name implying an 'all' scope. It is close to a restatement of the tool name and gives no hint about what 'all' means versus the plain list.

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 warning that filters are 'primarily intended for use by the frontend' gives implicit guidance to avoid heavy filtering, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus hwid_devices_list or hwid_top_users. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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