island_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. It discloses core behaviors: listing, optional time filtering, and sortability. It does not explicitly confirm read-only semantics, describe the response shape (there is no output schema), or address pagination defaults, leaving the safety profile and return expectations to inference.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, followed by filter and sort behaviors. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 list tool with zero required parameters and a fully self-documenting schema, the description plus schema cover the invocation surface well. The residual gaps — explicit sibling-selection guidance and expected return format — are minor for a resource-named list tool.

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% — every parameter has a description, defaults, and the one enum is fully specified — so the baseline is 3. The description's 'e.g. LastSeen' example only echoes what the schema already confirms about sort_by and adds no new parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List devices running Island Browser under this account'), naming the account scope. The resource (devices) is clearly distinct from all three siblings (admin_actions, audit_events, compromised_credentials), so an agent can select this tool without opening schemas.

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 conveys usage context — devices under the current account, optional last_seen filter, sorting — which makes its purpose inferable. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over island_list_admin_actions, island_list_audit_events, or island_list_compromised_credentials, nor gives exclusions. The sibling resources are obviously different, making the gap mild but real.

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