List agents (devices)

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the bar is lower. The description adds the field set returned by default (name, customer, OS, online status, last seen, logged-in user), which is useful context absent an output schema, but says nothing about pagination behavior or what 'full' changes relative to the default summary.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose and returned fields front-loaded and the optional filter trailing. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is the key missing piece and it is supplied; annotations cover the safety profile. It is only slightly short of complete, lacking any hint about pagination scale or the summary-vs-full tradeoff.

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 four parameters (full, page, customerId, itemsInPage) are already documented. The description only reinforces the customerId filter, adding no new syntax, defaults, or limits beyond the schema; 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?

States a specific verb+resource and clarifies the domain term ('monitored machines (Atera agents)'), and enumerates the returned fields. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like list_devices or find_agents, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

'Optionally only one customer' implies the customerId filter is the main scoping lever, which is mild usage guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use vs find_agents/get_agent/list_devices, and no stated conditions or exclusions.

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