list_problem_devices

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose whether the tool requires administrative privileges, what scope of devices is covered (e.g., all devices or only currently problematic ones), or any performance or side effects. The examples of error codes offer some insight into output, but overall behavioral information is lacking.

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 highly concise with exactly two sentences. The first states the core function, and the second provides illustrative examples. No extraneous information is present, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally acceptable. However, it lacks information on the scope of devices, when to use the tool, and any constraints or prerequisites. It is functional but not fully complete for a complex tool.

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 has no parameters, and the input schema is empty. With schema description coverage at 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no additional parameter semantics are required.

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 indicates the tool deals with devices that Windows reports as problematic and decodes Device Manager error codes, which matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly state that it 'lists' such devices, and it does not differentiate from sibling tools, though none are directly comparable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives examples of common error codes but does not explain the context or prerequisites for using the tool.

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