listPendingDevices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies read-only list operation without side effects, but does not disclose pagination, permission requirements, error behavior, or any constraints. For a simple list, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Description is extremely concise: one sentence stating the action, one sentence listing returns. No fluff, front-loaded with the key purpose. Every word adds value.

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 and simple parameters, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and the distinction from adopted devices. Could mention pagination or default site behavior more explicitly, but overall sufficient.

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%, and schema descriptions for siteId (default site config, discover via listSites) and customHeaders (rarely needed) are already detailed. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists devices discovered but not yet adopted, and specifies returned fields (type, MAC, IP, model). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like listDevices which likely list adopted devices.

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?

Description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listDevices. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for adoption workflow, leaving usage decision implicit.

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