list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it discloses the fields returned and warns about a domain caveat that could cause incorrect assumptions about bed sides.

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 compact and front-loaded: it first states what is discovered, then gives two important caveats. Every sentence adds value with no wasteful repetition.

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?

For a no-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the returned information, states the scope as claimed devices, and supplies a critical operational caveat about not inferring bed sides.

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 zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for schema gaps, and a baseline 4 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 states a specific verb and resource: discovering claimed device IDs, names, and attachments. It is clearly a listing/discovery tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling identify_devices.

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?

It gives useful usage context by warning that names and ordering do not establish bed sides, and it directs the agent to read each selected device's status to learn its model. It lacks an explicit when-not or named alternative sibling, but the workflow guidance is clear.

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