prtg_list_devices

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: the returned device objects include hostname/IP, status, parent group/probe, and the `id` is the linkage key to downstream tools. It stops short of noting read-only safety explicitly, pagination behavior, or response shape beyond those fields, though the schema covers limit/offset 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output fields; the second sentence adds actionable chaining guidance. 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 read-only list tool with five optional, fully documented parameters, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned, names the key field (`id`), and points to the natural next tools. The only real gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of sibling list tools, which is minor given the self-explanatory resource names.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level semantics of its own; 'filter by parent' refers to prtg_list_sensors, not the `filter` parameter of this tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action and resource: 'List monitored devices' and even previews the relevant fields (hostname/IP, status, parent group/probe). It does not explicitly contrast itself against siblings like prtg_list_sensors or prtg_list_groups, but the device-specific language and the mention of chaining into prtg_get_device and prtg_list_sensors make the distinction reasonably apparent.

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 second sentence gives implied usage guidance: after listing devices, an agent should use each device's `id` to chain into prtg_get_device, prtg_list_sensors, and prtg_get_object_sensor_summary. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as prtg_list_groups or prtg_list_probes, nor does it give exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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