Search Devices

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: matching occurs across name, class, and capability names, and the result includes current values. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, though it does not specify details like case sensitivity or match type (exact vs partial).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes practical examples without wasted words. It is succinct and well-structured.

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?

With a single parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: search scope, return content, and usage examples. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the query parameter with the same matching criteria. The description adds examples but no new parameter attributes (format, constraints). Given 100% schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's verb ('Search devices') and the specific searchable attributes (name, device class, capability name), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_devices and get_device. It also states the return value (matching devices with current values), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states the use case: finding devices when the exact ID is unknown. It provides concrete examples ('temperature' for sensors, 'kitchen' for name matches), which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives that require an ID.

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