list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing) but does not disclose potential failure modes, whether the list is sorted, or any device-specific filtering beyond the 'Web Inspector enabled' condition (already part of the purpose). It is a safe read but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the verb and resource directly, making it maximally concise while preserving clarity.

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?

The description is adequate for a zero-parameter list operation, but the absence of an output schema leaves the agent without knowledge of the return shape (e.g., array of device objects or just UDIDs). It also does not address edge cases like 'no devices connected'.

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 schema coverage is fully complete. Per the baseline for 0 params, the description does not need to add parameter detail; it is appropriately silent.

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 uses a specific verb ('list') and specifies the exact resource ('connected iOS devices with Web Inspector enabled'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'list_inspectable_pages' which operates at the page level. The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_inspectable_pages' or 'connect'. It does not mention whether it should be called first, if any device pairing is required, or how it fits into the overall workflow.

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