meiju_list_devices

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only the experimental AC profile supports controls (implying limited capability), and device_id is opaque, which warns against parsing it.

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?

Two short clauses with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second clause reads as a disconnected note that could be tied more explicitly to the returned devices.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only safety profile. The description supplies the missing capability caveat; only a clearer link to downstream tools is absent.

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 the baseline is 4. The mention of opaque device_id refers to output identifiers rather than inputs, and adds mild value without contradicting the empty schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Load account devices' clearly names what is returned. It partially differentiates from siblings by noting the experimental AC profile is the only one supporting controls, hinting at the meiju_control relationship, though it does not contrast against get_status or get_capabilities.

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?

'Use opaque device_id' implies this call is a prerequisite for later device-targeted operations, and the AC-profile note implies scope limits on downstream control. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings such as meiju_get_status or meiju_get_capabilities.

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