ism_get_devices

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that this is a retrieval operation; it says nothing about whether results require an active scan, whether results are cached or live, or how staleness interacts with the max_age parameter, leaving the agent to guess at runtime preconditions.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and a useful parenthetical of examples; no wasted wording. It is short to the point of being under-specified rather than verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the lone parameter is fully documented. What is missing for this simple tool is the operational context: whether it depends on ism_start_scanning and how an empty result should be interpreted.

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?

There is a single optional parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with max_age already documented as 'Maximum age of devices in seconds' in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get list of detected ISM band devices') and adds concrete examples (weather stations, sensors) that clarify scope. It does not, however, distinguish this read from the related ism_start_scanning / ism_stop_scanning siblings, so an agent must infer the lifecycle relationship.

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: the word 'detected' suggests this retrieves results from an ongoing scan rather than starting one, which hints that scanning must precede it. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do if the list is empty, and no named alternative such as ism_start_scanning.

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