List discovered devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by revealing what the scan surfaces (IP, MAC, hostname, model, ctrlPi status, credential availability), but it says nothing about latency, whether a scan blocks, or caching behavior — that only appears in the force_refresh parameter description.

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 filler, and the enumeration of returned fields is the useful part of the payload. It is dense but readable, with no redundant restatement of the title.

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 trivial one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does the important remaining work by listing the fields the scan returns, which lets an agent judge whether a result is usable. Only the operational characteristics of the scan itself (cost, blocking, cache age) are left unstated.

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 a single optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage that already explains the cached-vs-rescan tradeoff, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no further detail such as expected scan duration or how stale the cache is; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('scan the local network for Raspberry Pis and SSH devices') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows this is a discovery/list operation rather than a per-device lookup like pi_device_info. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than named, which keeps it 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?

The scan framing implies this is the entry point before authenticating or running commands, but the description never says when to use it versus pi_device_info or how to act on 'saved credential availability'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or follow-up guidance are given, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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