edgegate_list_device_targets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the heartbeat mechanism (30s beat, 90s window), how live/offline status is computed, the scope (workspace fleet vs global catalog), and empty-case behavior (includes connect instructions). It does not cover pagination or error conditions, but for a simple list tool it's quite transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a purpose: main functionality and status calculation, scope differentiation with a named sibling, and empty-response behavior. No redundant wording; information is front-loaded and tightly structured.

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 low complexity (one required UUID param, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it lists, how status is determined, what fleet it refers to, how it differs from the global catalog, and what happens when the list is empty. This is complete for the tool's context.

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 parameter `workspace_id` is not explained in the description; schema coverage is 0%. While the description implies workspace scope, it never explicitly ties the parameter to the customer's workspace or explains how to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter semantics beyond the schema's basic name/format.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('customer's OWN connected devices') with additional scope details (Jetson, Snapdragon hosts, gateways, workspace fleet via edgegate-runner agent). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `edgegate_list_devices` (global catalog), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for the customer's own workspace fleet) and when not to use it (global AI Hub catalog), explicitly naming the alternative tool `edgegate_list_devices`. It also mentions the empty-response behavior with connect instructions, giving clear context.

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