lan_device_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read operation, the description does not state whether it returns all devices or only online ones, whether authentication is needed, or any side effects. It also does not clarify what 'current status' encompasses.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, the extreme brevity leaves out important context, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool has four optional parameters, no annotations, and only a minimal description. The output schema exists but is not described; given the low complexity, the description should at least hint at filtering capabilities or typical output. It does not, leaving the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 0% and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (filter_room, filter_type, online_only, filter_transport). There is zero information about accepted values, formats, or how filters interact, forcing the agent to guess.

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 resource ('registered devices') with an added scope ('current status'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like lan_discover (which scans for unregistered devices) and lan_device_status (which likely targets a single device).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lan_device_status, lan_discover, or lan_device_control. There are no exclusions, conditions, or example scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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