list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the enumeration of device profiles and no additional behavioral details such as return formatting or ordering. There is no contradiction between the description and the annotations.

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 tight phrase with no filler or redundant material. The core subject 'Supported device profiles' is front-loaded, followed immediately by the concrete list of values. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent exactly what the tool relates to and enumerates the relevant device profiles. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state that these profiles are the return value, but the tool name and annotations make this sufficiently clear.

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 has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The description contributes useful domain vocabulary by listing the possible device profile values, which helps the agent understand the tool's domain even though no parameters are required.

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 identifies the resource (supported device profiles) and gives the exact set of values: sprite, mbot, cyberpi, arduino_uno, stage. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the tool name 'list_devices' to convey the action, but the purpose is nevertheless clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools like list_targets or list_blocks, though the specific domain makes confusion unlikely.

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 about when to call this tool rather than a sibling such as list_targets or list_blocks. There are no stated prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria. For a zero-parameter read-only list tool the omission is not critical, but the description still provides no usage direction.

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