List devices

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the shape of the returned summary and the non-obvious rule that retired devices are silently filtered unless include_retired or status is supplied. That silent-filtering default is exactly the kind of hidden behavior an agent needs. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or total-count semantics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the exclusion rule and the sibling routing hint. Every sentence carries information not present elsewhere; nothing is padding.

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 13-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the summary fields and calling out the filtering default. Pagination behavior across page/rows and any result-count or truncation semantics are left implicit, which is the only remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond restating fields by explaining the cross-parameter interaction between include_retired and status, and by characterizing the returned summary fields. The default exclusion semantics are not expressible in the schema alone.

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 managed devices in Miradore') plus scope ('with optional filters'), and explicitly separates itself from get_device for single-device detail. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like query_miradore or list_suspended_devices without opening a schema.

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?

Names one concrete alternative with the condition that selects it ('Use get_device for full details on one device') and states the default exclusion rule for retired devices with the parameters that override it. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other list-style or search-style siblings, so routing among the wider toolset still needs inference.

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