roboshadow_list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses that the data is PII-bearing (IP/MAC, logged-on user, serial number) and admin-gated – critical behavioral traits for access control and data handling. It does not describe the response envelope or pagination behavior, but those are partially represented in the schema.

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, each earning its place: the first states the action and output fields, the second states the data-sensitivity and access-control caveat. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff.

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 description covers the tool's functional output and the critical access caveat, and the schema fully documents all parameters. Given there is no output schema, it could have described the response format (e.g., paginated list envelope), but the listed fields and implicit list structure give an agent enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; 'every device in a RoboShadow organisation' loosely reinforces the required organisationId but provides no extra parameter-level detail.

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 every device in a RoboShadow organisation' – the scope is unambiguous. It then enumerates the output fields (hardware/OS identity, network address, health scores, pending-update/CVE counts), which clearly distinguishes it from singular get_device and other device-focused siblings.

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?

It provides clear context: this is the tool to use when you need the full device inventory of an organisation, contrasted implicitly by 'every device' against singular alternatives. It does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select it appropriately.

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