tailscale_list_devices

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc., so safety is clear. Description adds that returned data includes status, IP addresses, OS, and last seen time, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or other behaviors. With annotations covering the core traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Single sentence that conveys essential purpose and output fields. No redundant information, perfectly concise.

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?

With full schema documentation and read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete. However, there is no output schema, and the description only hints at return fields. Still, for a listing tool with good annotations, it covers most needs.

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%; both parameters (fields, filters) are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter meaning, so 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?

Description clearly states listing all devices in a tailnet with specific fields (status, IP, OS, last seen). Verb 'list' and resource 'devices' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like tailscale_get_device.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives. Usage is implied by name and purpose, but there is no guidance on when not to use this or when to prefer a similar tool (e.g., tailscale_get_device for a single device).

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