list_integration_devices

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Mentions 'List' (read-only) and 'Returns paginated list' but does not address auth requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Docstring format with Args and Returns is clear and front-loaded. However, includes an incorrect parameter ('settings'), reducing conciseness. Reasonably structured but flawed.

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?

Output schema exists (paginated list) so description need not detail returns, but it does mention pagination. Missing explanation of 'adopted devices' and does not cover all parameters correctly. The erroneous parameter hurts 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?

Description lists 'settings' parameter which is not present in the input schema. This contradicts the schema and adds confusion. Schema coverage is 0%, so description should clarify parameters, but it introduces an error.

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?

Clearly states the action (List), resource (adopted devices), and context (via integration API). Distinguishes from siblings like list_integration_clients and list_integration_networks.

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?

Implied usage: to list devices. No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_integration_device for a single device) or when not to use. Lacks exclusion criteria.

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