list_pairings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states 'locally stored' which implies a read-only operation and local scope, but it doesn't disclose details like whether the list is sorted, includes inactive pairings, or if any side effects occur. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. However, it doesn't mention what the output looks like (e.g., list of pairing IDs, device names) or any edge cases like empty lists. For a basic list tool, this is acceptable but could be slightly more informative.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description adds no parameter info because none exist, but the baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 'List locally stored consumer pairings' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (locally stored consumer pairings). It distinguishes from siblings like list_known_devices and list_watch_history by specifying 'pairings' and 'locally stored', though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage for retrieving pairings but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_known_devices or remove_pairing. It doesn't mention prerequisites or context, but the purpose is clear enough for basic selection.

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