faz_list_unregistered_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering semantics, or interpretation of 'visible.' It does not conflict with 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 sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has annotations plus an output schema, the description leaves gaps about what 'visible' means and what 'registered' refers to in the FortiAnalyzer context. It is adequate for a minimal tool but doesn't provide a fuller operational picture.

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 single optional 'fields' parameter has 0% schema coverage and is not mentioned in the description. Since the description must compensate for the schema's lack of documentation and fails to do so, the parameter semantics are completely unaddressed.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the specific resource ('devices visible to FortiAnalyzer but not registered'). This distinguishes it from sibling tool faz_list_devices, which likely lists registered devices. The one-sentence summary is direct 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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need unregistered devices) but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative tool names. It doesn't mention that faz_list_devices is for registered devices, but the wording implicitly separates the use case.

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