getSitesDeviceWhiteList

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it's a read operation but omits details like pagination behavior, required permissions, or what the whitelist contains. The schema shows pagination parameters, but the description adds no value.

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 excessively short (one sentence), which is concise but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure and fails to elaborate on key aspects.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the complexity of paginated lists, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the whitelist is, the response format, or how pagination works.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., siteId, page, pageSize). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'device whitelist for a site', which is specific enough to distinguish from many sibling tools that target other resources (e.g., getApDetail, getClient). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'getSites*' tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getAllDeviceBySite or getDevice, nor any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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