list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the return format (JSON envelope with data array and specific fields), the semantics of the type parameter (system types match os_type because a device row only carries the coarse type), and the keyword search behavior. This is rich, actionable detail that goes beyond a minimal listing.

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 well-structured with an opening usage hook ('Start here'), an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value—no filler. The critical 'Start here' guidance is front-loaded, and the parameter explanations are concise yet complete. This is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the presence of an output schema (as indicated), the description covers purpose, when to use, all parameter semantics, and the return envelope shape. It also explains the platform-family nuance, which is essential for correct downstream tool use. No critical information an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema provides zero description coverage for its 4 parameters, so the description must compensate entirely. It does so thoroughly: keyword (case-insensitive substring across a specific list of fields), state (busy, free, offline), type (category or system type with examples), and limit (default 10). Each parameter is given meaning beyond the bare schema definition.

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 ('devices accessible to the current API key'). It clearly distinguishes itself from all sibling tools by positioning itself as the entry point for finding the serialno needed by every other tool, and it clarifies the platform-family scoping. This is unambiguous and specific.

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 explicitly says 'Start here: this is how you find the serialno that every other tool needs', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains that a serialno is only meaningful within one platform family, which helps the agent understand the context. No alternative tools are needed for this action, so no exclusions are necessary.

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