get_offline_devices

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true; the description adds scoping precedence, default sorting, and total_offline_devices count behavior. These details go beyond annotations and help an agent anticipate response 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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and every clause conveys scoping, ordering, limit, and count behavior.

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 list tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, it covers return semantics (total count, sort, limit) and scoping. Does not define 'offline' or pagination, but those are minor given the 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds box scoping precedence ('Scoped to box, else FIREWALLA_BOX_ID, else every box') beyond the schema's 'filter' wording, and confirms limit/sort defaults.

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 offline devices from the full device list'), names the exact endpoint (GET /v2/devices), and clarifies the filtering semantics. The scoping rules distinguish it from generic device listing tools.

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?

Implied usage context is present through sort order, limit, and scoping fallback, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with the sibling search_devices. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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