list_known_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully clarifies that results come from the local store rather than a network scan, but adds nothing on ordering, staleness, or empty-store behavior; with an output schema present, return format need not be described.

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. The key scoping fact — local knowledge database — is placed where it is read first.

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 parameterless list tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the essentials. It could go further by noting whether entries persist across sessions or how they get there (remember_discovery), but nothing required for a correct call is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is also 100%.

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 (List) and resource (device profiles), and scopes it to the local knowledge database, which distinguishes it from live-scan siblings like discover_devices or discover_wireless_devices. It does not explicitly name or contrast with get_device_knowledge or inspect_device, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by 'saved in the local knowledge database' — this is the persisted-inventory read versus live discovery — but the description never states when to prefer it over get_device_knowledge or inspect_device, nor any prerequisites for the database being populated.

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