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 for behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all registered hardware devices and their metadata,' which adds only minimal context beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly mention that this is a safe, read-only operation, whether any permissions are required, or what 'metadata' includes. For a list tool, some disclosure of non-destructive behavior or scope would be expected.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb 'List' and directly states the resource. Every word is necessary; there is no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-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 is trivial (0 params, no output schema), the description suffices to convey the basic capability. However, it does not specify the return format or the exact metadata fields, which would be helpful since no output schema exists. It is minimal but not fully complete for a list tool, as it leaves 'metadata' undefined.

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 input schema has zero properties (100% schema description coverage with no parameters). The description needs to add no parameter information, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not introduce any unnecessary parameter details.

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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all registered hardware devices') and mentions metadata, making the purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like connect_device or device_status, which handle individual device actions.

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?

Usage is implied by the word 'List' — an agent can infer it is the tool to enumerate devices. However, the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like device_status, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is thus implicit rather than explicit.

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