list_devices

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned item shape (id, name, area_id, config_entries, identifiers, connections, disabled_by), which substitutes for the missing output schema. However, it says nothing about pagination, result size, or required auth, leaving real gaps for a registry-listing tool.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the field enumeration, while long, earns its place as the only documentation of the return shape. Minimal waste overall.

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 usefully compensates for the absent output schema by listing returned fields. But for a 6-param tool with 0% schema coverage it under-documents the filter parameters, so an agent cannot confidently use most of the schema surface.

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 0% and there are 6 parameters, yet the description only explains the `integration` filter. The other five (model, area_id, disabled, manufacturer, config_entry_id) are completely undocumented in both schema and description – a significant failure to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'List devices from HA's device_registry'. It clearly differs from get_device (retrieve one) and list_entities/list_areas, though it never names a sibling explicitly. Clear but without deliberate sibling differentiation.

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?

Offers one concrete usage hint – filter by integration (e.g. 'tuya') to scope results – which implies when the tool is useful. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this over list_entities or get_device, and no mention of unfiltered behavior.

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