faz_list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds scoping to an ADOM and the optional field selection, which is useful, but does not disclose return format or pagination behavior. This is consistent with a moderate-level addition beyond annotations.

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, focused sentence of 11 words, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with output schema present, this description covers the essential behavior, scope, and optionality. It does not need to describe return values since an output schema exists, and no critical information 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially: 'in an ADOM' gives meaning to the adom parameter, and 'optionally selecting response fields' explains the fields parameter. However, the explanations are basic and lack additional detail like examples or allowed field names, so the semantics are only moderately enriched.

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 action (List), the resource (managed devices), and the scope (in an ADOM), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like faz_list_unregistered_devices and faz_list_adoms. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 context is clear: use this tool to list managed devices within an ADOM, as opposed to unregistered devices or other resource lists. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of the explicit guidance in the top-tier example.

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