cdeck_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "List" plus "paired on this machine" does communicate a read-only, machine-local scope, which is useful, but it says nothing about whether the local pairing service must be running, latency, or behavior when nothing is paired.

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 short sentence with the scope constraint ("on this machine") front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is listed and the scope of the listing. The only meaningful gap is the empty-result / service-not-running case, which is minor given the output schema documents the return shape.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the schema is fully described.

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 a specific verb ("List") and a specific resource ("the TVs paired on this machine"), which cleanly separates it from the mutating siblings cdeck_pair/cdeck_unpair/cdeck_push. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from cdeck_status, which could plausibly also report paired devices, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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: an agent can infer this is the read/inventory call to make before pairing or pushing. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. "use cdeck_status for connection health").

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