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. It describes what the tool returns (comprehensive device information including states, sensors, capabilities) and implies it's a read operation ('Retrieve'), but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, or data freshness. The description adds useful context about scope but lacks operational details.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that each add value: the first states the core action and scope, the second elaborates on the comprehensiveness of returned data. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be made by combining related concepts more tightly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate coverage of what the tool does and returns. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the format of returned data, whether it includes pagination for large device sets, or any prerequisites for successful execution.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, maintaining focus on what the tool does rather than what inputs it accepts.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Retrieve', 'Returns') and resources ('Plugwise devices', 'current states, sensors, and capabilities'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it returns comprehensive information for all connected devices, unlike more specific tools like get_temperature or get_all_temperatures.

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 implies usage context by stating it retrieves 'all Plugwise devices' with 'comprehensive information', suggesting it should be used when broad device overview is needed rather than specific data points. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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