Get Devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds context about device types and federation but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, result size limits, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the purpose. The second and third sentences add useful domain context about what devices are, though they could be seen as slightly extra. No content is wasted, and it remains concise.

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 zero-parameter list-all tool with an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what devices are and the federation context. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but these may be covered by the output schema. Overall, adequate without major gaps.

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 parameters, so baseline of 4 applies. The description needs to add no parameter details. It correctly implies no inputs are required by saying 'get all devices.'

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's function: 'Get all devices known to Itential Platform.' The verb 'get' with the resource 'devices' is specific and unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from siblings by naming the exact resource type.

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 provides context about Itential Platform federating device information, implying this tool is for retrieving the full device inventory. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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