edgegate_list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format ('markdown table grouped by category') and global scope, but does not mention potential limitations like large result set, sorting, or any side effects. For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but not highly detailed.

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 earning its place: purpose, return format, and usage guidance. Front-loaded with the primary action, no unnecessary words.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return format, usage guidance, and scope (global). It provides enough for correct invocation and use in downstream workflows, as evidenced by the create_pipeline reference.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of the optional 'category' parameter. The description adds examples of categories (e.g., 'Snapdragon phones', 'QRD/CRD reference platforms') but does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every Qualcomm AI Hub device EdgeGate can target'), with examples of device categories. It is distinct but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'edgegate_list_device_targets', which could be confused for a similar function.

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 provides explicit context for use: 'Use the `id` column verbatim when building a `create_pipeline` device matrix' and notes 'No workspace_id needed — the catalog is global.' However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, only a specific integration path.

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