list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (devTotalCount, deviceResult array) and the optional scoping, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or data freshness. The return format is helpful but not exhaustive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence and a code block showing return structure. No unnecessary words, and the format is easy to parse. Every element serves a purpose.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides the return format and optional scoping, but lacks details on parameter behavior (e.g., pagination, search semantics). It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior without additional inference.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description only hints at the application_id parameter via 'optionally scoped to one application'. It does not explain limit, offset, search, or organization_id, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names and types. More semantic information is needed.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('devices'), and mentions optional scoping to one application, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_applications or list_gateways.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (listing devices with optional application scoping) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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