list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that results are limited to devices 'known to the Recorder,' but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size.

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; every word contributes to identifying the resource and its scope.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the tool is a simple no-argument read. The one remaining gap is routing guidance versus sibling tools, which is not strictly required for correct invocation but would help selection.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to document, and it correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('OwnTracks users and their devices'), and the 'known to the Recorder' qualifier scopes the result set. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_last_location or get_location_history, though it does not explicitly name what distinguishes it from owntracks_status.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating devices, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no reference to alternative siblings, and no note about prerequisites or empty results.

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