list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are capped by `limit` and `truncated=true` means the list is incomplete, a caveat an agent would otherwise miss.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the field inventory, the second delivers the truncation caveat. No wasted wording and no repetition of 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 annotations covering the safety profile, an output schema present, and the sole parameter fully documented, the main remaining gap an agent needed was the truncation caveat, which is provided. Nothing essential is missing, though it could note what 'trust status' values mean.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what the limit does in practice (caps results) and tying it to the truncated signal. That clarifies the meaning of an otherwise generic 'Maximum items to return' parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List devices') and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, OS, owner email, trust status, last seen), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like list_users or get_user, but the resource noun makes selection 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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the field list; there's no statement of when to prefer this over get_user or when-not to call it. Adequate for a simple sibling list but no explicit guidance.

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