list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that discovery does not initiate a capture (side-effect-free), which is meaningful behavioral context. However it says nothing about return format, whether hardware probing can block/timeout, or what happens if no backend is specified.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the discovery action and its key constraint are stated immediately.

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 simple one-parameter discovery tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the action but omits what is returned and how the backend parameter affects behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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?

There is one optional parameter (backend) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The enum values (mock, sigrok, dslab) are somewhat self-evident, but there is no explanation of default behavior or what each backend means for discovery, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb (Discover) and resource (connected logic analyzers), and the clause 'without starting a capture' implicitly separates it from the capture-centric siblings. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Without starting a capture' hints at when to use it (pre-capture discovery), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives like capabilities or self_test. Usage is only implied.

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