get_offline_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions being a 'convenience wrapper', it doesn't describe what that entails operationally - whether this is a filtered view, how it handles pagination, what the return format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and relationship to another tool. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. While concise, it doesn't provide enough context about what the tool returns, how results are structured, or important behavioral aspects. For a tool that presumably returns potentially large datasets of offline devices, more guidance on usage patterns and result handling would be helpful.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('offline devices'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_device_status' by specifying it's a convenience wrapper focused on offline devices only. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other device-related siblings like 'search_devices' in terms of scope or filtering approach.

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 by mentioning it's a 'convenience wrapper around get_device_status', suggesting this tool should be used when specifically interested in offline devices rather than general device status. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_devices' or clarify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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