List devices on the network

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is safe. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by enumerating the fields returned (IP, name, connection type, signal, traffic counters) and the filtering/sorting options, which sets expectations about output content. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description enhances the read-only context with field-level transparency.

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 the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. No redundancy, filler, or irrelevant detail. Every sentence earns its place by conveying scope and customization options efficiently.

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 read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential data scope and provides usage hints. It lists the fields that will appear in the result, which effectively substitutes for an output schema. It does not mention pagination or default behavior explicitly, but the schema already contains defaults, so the combination of schema and description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 all three parameters already have clear descriptions and enums. The description reinforces how filter and sort work (e.g., 'narrow to active, wired...' and 'rank by traffic...') but does not add semantically new information beyond the schema. Per the calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation load.

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?

States the specific action 'list' on 'devices', and describes exactly what the result contains (IP, name, connection, signal, traffic). The phrase 'every device the router knows about' implies a broad listing scope, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling get_device, which presumably targets a single device. The description effectively tells an agent what this tool is for and how it differs from nearby tools.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (when a comprehensive device list is needed) and how to refine results via 'filter' and 'sort'. However, it never explicitly mentions when not to use it or names alternatives (e.g., get_device). The guidance is adequate but lacks explicit exclusion or alternative routing, so it does not fully meet the 5-bar.

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