tailscale_list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a list operation, implying it is read-only and non-destructive, and mentions the types of data returned. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes useful details without redundancy. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete for a list operation. It covers what the tool does and the data returned, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like permissions or output format, which are not covered by annotations or schema.

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 the schema fully documents the 'fields' parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of field values or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 ('List all devices') and resource ('in your Tailscale network'), specifying the scope ('all devices') and key data returned ('device name, hostname, IP addresses, OS, connection status, and more'). It distinguishes from siblings like tailscale_list_offline_devices by emphasizing 'all devices' rather than filtered subsets.

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 for retrieving comprehensive device information, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tailscale_list_offline_devices or tailscale_get_device. It provides clear context for listing all devices but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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