quest_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only listing operation (via 'List') and describes the output semantics, including the possible connection states (device/unauthorized/offline) and wireless flag. It doesn't mention prerequisites or edge cases, but for a simple enumeration tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence adds valuable detail. There is no fluff, and the return-field list is compact yet informative.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description provides the essential context: what devices are listed, what connection states are included, and a usage recommendation. It is complete for a discovery-type tool and fits well among the sibling tools.

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, so the schema already covers all inputs trivially. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains, but no parameter semantics are needed. Baseline 4 is appropriate per the rubric for no-parameter tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'connected Quest/Android devices,' clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings that perform actions like connecting, installing, or launching. It also details key return fields (serial, model, connection state, wireless status), removing ambiguity.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage hint: 'Use this first if unsure what is connected.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific sibling alternatives, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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