List custom attribute definitions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by disclosing what is returned (IDs and names) and its discovery role for a write tool, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether the list is tenant-wide.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource named first, the returned fields in parentheses, and the downstream consumer at the end. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it lists, what fields come back, and where the result is consumed. Missing only minor operational details such as whether the listing is paginated or scoped to the caller's site.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's parenthetical about IDs and names describes output rather than inputs, and no parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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 and resource ('List custom attributes configured in Miradore') and even names the return content (IDs and names). The reference to the sibling set_device_custom_attribute makes its role in the workflow unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from other list_* siblings such as list_tags.

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?

Clear usage context: it exists to supply the IDs needed by set_device_custom_attribute, which implies 'call this first to discover the attribute ID'. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., that it returns definitions, not per-device values) or stating there are no parameters to filter by.

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