roboshadow_get_updates_report_by_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and filtering but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it disclose any side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. The 'List' verb implies read-only, but it is not explicit.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. No filler or redundant information; every clause adds value.

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?

The tool has 15 parameters, but the description only summarizes the filters and mentions pagination. It does not describe the return format or error behavior (no output schema), nor does it explain the interplay between pagination parameters or the required organisationId beyond what the schema already provides. For a tool with this complexity, a bit more context on expected output and usage pattern would help, but the schema covers the parameters adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds a high-level summary of the filter categories (update category, workstation/server, reboot-required), but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List'), a precise resource ('missing-updates report grouped by device'), scope ('across the organisation'), and key filters (update category, workstation/server, reboot-required). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like roboshadow_get_updates_summary (summary) and roboshadow_get_device_updates (per device) by specifying the grouping and pagination.

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 for organization-wide missing-updates reports grouped by device, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as roboshadow_get_device_updates or roboshadow_get_updates_summary. No exclusion criteria or alternative routing is provided.

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