List devices

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by specifying the fields returned. However, it does not mention any potential pagination or limits, which would be useful for a list operation.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose and output details without any fluff. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 simple input schema (one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It lists the output fields, but does not explain what happens if no devices are found or if there are errors. A mention of response format could improve completeness.

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 input schema has one parameter (siteId) with a description that it overrides the default site. The description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'APs, switches and gateways at a site', and also enumerates the fields returned (model, IP, status, firmware version, last-seen timestamp). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_device or get_ap_radios by specifying multiple device types and attributes.

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 implies this tool is for listing multiple devices, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_device (for a single device) or get_ap_radios (for AP radios). No usage context or exclusions are provided.

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