List devices

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: that detector objects are emitted to the FDS deck as DEVC+PROP lines. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or whether the list reflects the deck or only in-memory state, which would have pushed this higher.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and return fields, with the parenthetical enumeration of detector types doing necessary disambiguation work. The bracket-tagged rules line is compact but cryptically formatted — it reads as an internal cross-reference rather than agent-facing prose.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields (ID, quantity, position) and the two device families covered. Combined with annotations that fully characterize the read-only, idempotent behavior, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on what the no-argument call returns, which is the more useful information here.

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?

Names a specific verb (List) and resource (measurement devices), then scopes it precisely: both &DEVC devices and detector objects, with the ID/quantity/position fields called out. The resource is unique enough among the list_* siblings (list_surfaces, list_obstacles, list_vents, list_geoms) that an agent can tell it apart without opening any schema.

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 read-side companion to add_device/update_device/remove_device, but the description never says when to call it versus, say, get_object_properties or a knowledge lookup. The trailing rules pointer (DEVC-001, DEVC-003, DEVC-004 → bulc_knowledge_search) hints at a validation workflow without stating the condition.

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