skylight_list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that results are physical devices tied to a frame, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or what happens when no frame 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 no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it identifies the resource but omits how frameId scopes the result and what the response contains. It does not fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single frameId parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description never mentions frameId, nor whether it is optional or what the default scope is when omitted, leaving the parameter's meaning to inference.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (physical devices attached to a Skylight frame), which is clearer than a bare 'list devices'. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as skylight_list_frames or skylight_rename_device, so an agent must infer the boundary between frame-level and device-level resources.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus skylight_list_frames or other device-related siblings, and no mention of prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the word 'List'.

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