Search devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the cross-reference to `domoticz://devices` and mentions search by name/status, which provides some context. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior or result ordering, but with annotations covering safety, 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?

The description is a single sentence plus a cross-reference, which is efficient and front-loaded. The cross-reference is useful but could be considered extra. No wasted words, though the cross-reference format might be cryptic to some agents.

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 read-only search tool with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is mostly complete. The cross-reference to `domoticz://devices` adds context. It doesn't mention result ordering or exact matching behavior, but these are minor gaps given the schema and annotations.

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 three parameters (query, limit, offset) with descriptions. The description adds the 'name/status' search scope, which aligns with the query parameter, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Search devices by name/status.' It distinguishes the tool as a device search, which is distinct from sibling search_scripts_tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_scripts_tool or other device-related tools, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 for searching devices by name/status, and the cross-reference to `domoticz://devices` hints at the data source. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_scripts_tool or when not to use it. The context is implied rather than explicit.

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