list_witzense_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately indicates a read-like operation ('list') and the association with a Witzense account, but it does not describe potential side effects, error conditions, or default behavior beyond what is in the schema. It is not misleading but also not particularly revealing.

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 a single eight-word sentence that is direct and front-loaded. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what the tool does and the key qualifier (owner of devices). It could have mentioned default pagination or return format, but these are not critical for a straightforward listing action.

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 description coverage is 100% because the sole parameter `target` includes an inline description: 'Account to query; defaults to the configured account.' The main description does not add additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('devices') with a qualifying context ('belonging to a Witzense account'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like 'get_witzense_device' (singular) and 'list_witzense_child_accounts'. However, it does not explicitly call out the distinction from those alternatives, so it doesn't earn 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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over `get_witzense_device` or other list tools. The description does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the simplicity of the operation makes the lack of conflict acceptable for a basic use case.

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