listDevices

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a list operation (likely read-only) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive, safe, or what side effects might exist. The verb 'list' and the nature of returning device details imply idempotency, but more direct disclosure would improve this score.

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 action and scope, no extraneous words. Each sentence adds value: first defines purpose and output, second provides usage guidance.

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 lists key return fields (MAC, model, firmware version, etc.), which is mostly complete for a list tool. Lacks mention of pagination or sorting, but context signals do not indicate these are needed. The tool's complexity is moderate.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters siteId and customHeaders are already documented in schema. Description adds that siteId is optional and defaults to OMADA_SITE_ID, but this is also implied by schema's description. No additional semantic value beyond 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?

The description specifies the tool lists provisioned network devices in a site, naming device types (gateways, switches, access points) and return fields (MAC, model, firmware, etc.). Distinguishes from siblings like searchDevices and getAllDeviceBySite by focusing on adopted devices with detailed fields.

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 states to use MAC addresses from this response as input to detail tools (getGatewayDetail, etc.), providing a clear downstream usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or alternatives such as searchDevices for filtered queries.

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