ring_list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses output scope but not behavioral traits such as the default inclusion of offline devices — and it is ambiguous: it says 'connected' devices, yet the includeOffline parameter defaults to true, meaning offline devices are returned by default. No mention of rate limits, auth, or side effects.

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 sentence with a front-loaded verb and no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent will get back: online status and hardware capabilities. The main gap is the 'connected' vs. includeOffline-default ambiguity, which the schema resolves. An agent could call this tool correctly with the information provided.

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 sole parameter, includeOffline, is fully documented in the schema with its default value and meaning (100% schema description coverage). The description adds only weak context by mentioning 'online status' as output, which loosely relates to the filter. Schema does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all connected Ring cameras and doorbells') and states the returned content ('online status and hardware capabilities'). The 'all' scope distinguishes it from single-device siblings like ring_get_device_status and ring_get_device_capabilities.

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 makes the intended use apparent: use it to get an inventory of all devices, rather than querying a single device's status or capabilities like the get_* siblings. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name when-not-to-use or list alternative tools.

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