withings_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 of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds context about account binding and the purpose of the call. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe, idempotent, or free of side effects, nor does it mention auth or error behavior. The verb covers the most important trait but the description doesn't fully embrace the responsibility.

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 wasted words. The core claim is front-loaded, the examples improve comprehension, and the usage hint follows naturally. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is nearly complete: it says what is listed, whose account is involved, gives examples, and explains why the tool is useful. It could mention that no arguments are required or describe the response shape, but those are minor given the schema and simplicity. It fully equips an agent to select and invoke 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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the parameter semantics are effectively complete by definition. With no parameters to document, the description's mention of returned device types adds context without being necessary. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and nothing here pushes it lower.

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 ('List') and names the exact resource ('Withings devices paired to the authorized account'), with concrete examples of device types. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many data-query sibling tools by focusing on device discovery rather than data retrieval.

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 provides clear timing guidance: use it 'before querying' to see which data sources exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but none of the siblings serve the same discovery purpose, so the implicit context is sufficient. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, keeping it just below a perfect score.

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