list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The key behavioral detail disclosed is 'Does NOT require a running app', which differentiates its execution context. It doesn't mention what the output looks like or whether it includes emulator vs physical device details, but the simplicity of the tool (0 params, list operation) reduces the need for extensive disclosure. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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?

Two short sentences, both earning their place. The first states the core purpose clearly, and the second adds a genuinely useful semantic qualifier about app state. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter, simple list operation, this description is largely sufficient. It states what it does and a key behavioral constraint. It doesn't explain return format, but with no output schema and a straightforward device-listing tool, the expected output is reasonably inferable. Given the tool's low complexity, this is adequate.

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 0 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage (empty properties), and the description adds the important qualification about not requiring a running app, which is contextual value beyond the schema. With no params, baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 'Lists available Flutter devices' with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools (start_app, tap, etc.) by being the device enumeration tool. The 'Does NOT require a running app' clarification reinforces the tool's distinct scope.

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 mentions it lists devices and explicitly clarifies it doesn't require a running app, which gives helpful context for when to use it (e.g., before starting an app to know available targets). However, it doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, though given siblings like start_app/stop_app, the placement of this command is fairly obvious.

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