tuya_list_devices

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the scope ('all available') and return fields, but does not mention pagination, error behavior, or authentication needs. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no unnecessary detail.

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 tool that already has an output schema, the description sufficiently captures the tool's purpose and result. It is complete for the simplicity 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details, so the baseline of 4 for 0-parameter tools applies.

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 action ('Get a list') and the resource ('all available Tuya devices'), specifying the included fields (IDs, names, categories, online status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target individual device actions.

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 listing devices but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling names make the distinction obvious.

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