cork_get_integration_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose the scope ('devices that have been mapped') and the kind of data returned, which is useful. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether pagination affects results, or any limitations/conditions beyond 'mapped.'

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 front-loaded sentence conveys the action, scope, and result fields without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place, and the 'mapped' qualifier is essential.

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 simple read/list operation, the description covers the main output categories and the mapping filter, while the schema covers pagination and the integration UUID source. Missing context such as the meaning of 'mapped' and relationship to tenant_uuid keeps it from being fully complete, but it is adequate for basic 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?

The schema already documents page, page_size, and integration_uuid with 75% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds little param-specific meaning beyond the schema; tenant_uuid remains undocumented by both the schema and description.

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 states a specific action ('List devices observed from an integration') and enumerates the key content (hostnames, IP addresses, device properties, normalized OS details), making the core purpose clear. It is distinct from siblings like cork_get_client_devices by the 'integration' scope, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus cork_get_client_devices, cork_get_connected_integrations, or other sibling tools. The 'from an integration' phrase implies a use case, but there are no stated conditions, exclusions, or alternatives.

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