uisp_list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned device attributes and the chaining behavior, and 'List' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not mention pagination, response shape, or the behavior of the withInterfaces option, which can significantly change the response.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and filters, and the second provides valuable downstream workflow context by connecting to related tools.

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 filterable list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: what it returns and how the results chain into later tools. It is slightly incomplete in not addressing pagination or the withInterfaces effect, but the schema and simple list semantics keep it adequate.

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 little beyond naming site/type/role/authorization filters and omits withInterfaces, but the schema fills that gap adequately.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List devices') and states the returned fields (hostname/IP/MAC, status, parent site). It also clarifies that it is the entry point for later device-level lookups by chaining the device 'id' into related tools, which distinguishes it from get_device and list_discovered_devices.

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 usage context is implied: this is for enumerating devices, optionally filtered, and for obtaining device IDs to use in related device tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as uisp_get_device_by_mac or uisp_list_discovered_devices.

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