get_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 behavioral disclosure, and it contributes almost nothing. 'List' implies a non-mutating operation, but the description does not disclose what the response contains, whether results reflect real-time device state, how 'available' is defined, or whether any session/authentication state is required. These gaps are meaningful in a sibling set full of device-state tools.

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 zero filler — the description is appropriately brief for a simple list tool and every word earns its place. It loses one point only because the tightness comes at the cost of omitting easily-addable value (e.g., response format or usage context) that would not meaningfully hurt conciseness.

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 tool this simple — two optional, fully-documented parameters and no nested objects — the description is near-adequate at conveying core purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about return shape, the meaning of 'available' devices, and how this compares to device-related siblings, so it is only minimally complete.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies: both max_results and response_format are fully documented in the input schema, including defaults, ranges, and enum semantics. The tool description adds no parameter information of its own, but it does not need to since the schema carries the full burden.

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 ('available Spotify Connect devices'), making the core purpose unmistakable. It is clearly a read/listing operation, which naturally distinguishes it from action siblings like switch_device, mute, or rename_device, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction from device inspection tools like compare_devices or device_health.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many device-related alternatives (switch_device, compare_devices, list_device_presets, device_sync_state, etc.). There is no mention of when it is appropriate, what prerequisites exist (e.g., active Spotify session), or which sibling covers related but different needs. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and context.

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