listDevices

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output fields and that it lists provisioned devices, which is a read operation. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or potential size of results, which could be important.

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 efficient sentences: first covers purpose and return data, second gives direct guidance to sibling tools. 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?

Given no output schema, the description explicitly lists key return fields (MAC, model, firmware, etc.) which is helpful. It lacks pagination details but overall provides sufficient context for agent to use effectively.

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 descriptions for both parameters (siteId with default behavior, customHeaders as rare). The tool description itself does not add extra parameter detail, but the schema already provides adequate meaning; baseline score of 3 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 it lists all provisioned network devices (gateways, switches, APs) in a site and lists the returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling detail tools by mentioning using MAC addresses from this output as input to getGatewayDetail, etc.

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 tells when to use the tool (to list all adopted devices) and how to use the output with detail tools. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like listPendingDevices, but the context is clear.

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