DLP network devices report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, including that it retrieves all devices and supports pagination. This is valuable for setting expectations about result size and retrieval pattern.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of one clear sentence with a short second sentence about pagination. Every word adds value and 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the core output (hardware devices with group counts) and pagination support. It does not detail return formats, but that is not required given the lack of output schema and the straightforward nature of the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (raw, page, pageLimit) are adequately described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter details, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 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 that the tool retrieves all hardware devices known to DLP, specifically by device instance path, and includes custom group association count. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like dlp_network_email_report or dlp_network_printer_report.

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 use for listing DLP hardware devices with group counts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides no explicit alternative guidance, but the purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage.

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