listDevices

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It declares returned fields but does not disclose potential pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive. Missing details like whether the list is always exhaustive or limited by page size.

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, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then return fields, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, description explicitly lists all returned fields (MAC, model, firmware, IP, uptime, CPU/memory, status). That's sufficient for the agent to understand what to expect. Could mention if results are paginated, but overall complete for a list tool.

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 already covers siteId with description linking to listSites. Description adds value by clarifying default behavior ('uses default site from OMADA_SITE_ID config') and noting customHeaders is 'Rarely needed.' This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Description starts with specific verb 'List all provisioned (adopted) network devices in a site: gateways, switches, and access points.' It clearly states the resource and scope, and distinguishes from siblings like getAllDeviceBySite by emphasizing it returns a list with specific fields for provisioned devices.

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?

Explicitly guides the agent to use MAC addresses from this response as input to detail tools (getGatewayDetail, getSwitchDetail, getApDetail). This provides clear post-invocation context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like searchDevices.

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