lan_discover_pending

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it makes no changes, nor does it mention any permissions or processing implications. It adds minimal context beyond the core action.

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 filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the key action ('List devices') and immediately scopes it ('awaiting manual registration'), making it optimally concise.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description does not explain the filter_transport parameter, and the interaction with sibling tools (e.g., when pending devices become available for registration) is not addressed. For a simple list tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps in parameter context and workflow integration.

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 input schema has one parameter, filter_transport, with no description in the schema and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its meaning and usage completely unexplained. The description fails to add any value for parameter understanding.

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 'List devices awaiting manual registration' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (devices awaiting manual registration), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like lan_discover or lan_device_list. The phrase 'awaiting manual registration' adds precision, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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. It does not mention lan_discover for listing all discovered devices or lan_pending_dismiss as related actions, 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.