device_deck_list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's real contribution is the two behavioral guarantees it adds: no device probing (no side effects on hardware) and no secrets in the payload (a security-relevant disclosure). It also states the pagination bounds, which the annotations do not cover.

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?

Three short sentences: what is returned, what is excluded, and the pagination bounds. Scope and exclusions are front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail is not required, and the read-only safety profile is covered by annotations. The remaining omission is response_format behavior and whether pagination totals are returned, both minor for a simple list tool.

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%, so the description must carry the load; it does supply real constraints the schema lacks ('Limit 1..100, offset >= 0') for two of three params. The third parameter, response_format, is never mentioned despite being an enum with two modes, leaving a genuine gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List registered device identities') and enumerates the concrete contents (LAN/remote/USB endpoints, credential references, timestamped observations). The negative clause 'Does not probe devices or retrieve secrets' implicitly separates it from device_deck_probe_device and device_deck_get_device, though it never names those siblings directly.

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?

'Does not probe devices or retrieve secrets' gives a usable when-not signal and implies this is the discovery/browse entry point before probing or fetching a single device. However, no sibling is named and there is no explicit 'use X instead when Y' routing, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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