List unique devices detected

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the output fields (connection counts, last occurrence, block status) and supported filters, which goes beyond what annotations alone convey. It does not mention pagination or response structure, but the schema covers page/pageLimit.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and every phrase adds value: scope, returned fields, and available filters. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 read-only summary list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, key returned data, and filter options. It does not explicitly describe the response envelope (e.g., pagination metadata), but the schema and annotations fill in most gaps, making it reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 each parameter already has a detailed description, including enums with values. The description only paraphrases the schema's filter parameters ('OS platform, device type, and block status') without adding new meaning or usage details, so the baseline 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 'Retrieves the list of unique devices detected in the network' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling DCM tools by emphasizing 'unique devices' and including connection counts, last occurrence, and block status, which are summary-level fields not mentioned in other tool names.

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 implies usage for getting a summary of unique devices, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like dcm_device_audit_list or dcm_computer_device_status_list. No when-not-to-use guidance or sibling references are provided, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the tool name and context.

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