List Devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the operator and scope, implying a read-only list operation, but doesn't explicitly disclose non-destructiveness, potential empty results, or any discovery limitations beyond the local broadcast domain.

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?

One clean sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Every word is aye essential to the meaning.

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 parameterless, output-schema-bearing listing tool, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit statement that it's read-only, which is otherwise reasonably inferred from the verb.

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 the schema fully reflects that (empty properties, 100% coverage). Baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; description need not add anything beyond what the schema already shows.

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?

States the specific verb (list) and resource (BACnet devices) with scope (local broadcast domain). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_objects and get_object_value by indicating it returns devices, not objects or values.

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: when you need to see all discovered BACnet devices. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with list_objects or get_tagged_topology, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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