ide_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return fields and filter behavior, and contrasts with ide_device_script, clarifying that this tool only lists models. It does not mention error conditions or side effects, but as a listing tool, 'List' implies a read-only operation, making this adequate.

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 highly concise, with two sentences front-loading the core purpose and then providing filter details and a pointer to a sibling tool. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, return fields, filter options, and how to access source code. It is contextually complete and appropriately scoped for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'filter' parameter by defining matching semantics (name or bus) and enumerating valid bus values. It does not specify exact filter syntax, but for a simple optional filter this is sufficient.

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 the tool lists virtual-device models with specific attributes (name, bus, address, display, pins, purpose). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ide_device_script by explicitly pointing to that tool for reading source, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It describes the optional filter matching name or bus with valid bus values (none/uart/spi/i2c), giving concrete usage guidance. It also mentions ide_device_script as an alternative for reading source, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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