ik_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the listing behavior and filter semantics, but does not mention the limit parameter (e.g., default of 100), pagination, ordering, or return format. For a read-only list operation, this is partial transparency.

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 core purpose and output fields, then filter details. Every word counts, with no redundancy or filler. Excellent structure.

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 simplicity of the tool and the lack of output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filter behavior. It omits explanation of the limit parameter and return format, but these are minor gaps for a straightforward listing 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?

The schema has 0% coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the 'filter' parameter (substring or exact core family), but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter. This partial compensation keeps it at a borderline adequate score.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'supported AVR target devices', along with the specific fields returned. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ik_device_info, but the scope is well-defined and 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?

The description explains how to use the filter (substring match on device name or exact core family) and lists valid core families, implying when filtering could be useful. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as ik_device_info or ide_devices.

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