List adopted devices

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read with no side effects, so the description does not need to carry the safety burden. It adds the useful fact that only *adopted* devices are returned and lists the fields exposed, but says nothing about scoping, pagination, or behavior when siteId is omitted (the schema covers that default).

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the resource and then the returned fields. It is efficient with no filler, though the missing verb makes it a fragment rather than a fully self-contained statement.

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, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, enumerating the returned device fields (model, MAC, IP, status, uptime, firmware) gives the agent enough to know what it will get and when it is the right call. Nothing essential is missing given the tool's low complexity.

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% and there is only one optional parameter, whose default behavior (OMADA_SITE_ID or the only site) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 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?

States the specific resource (adopted Omada devices for a site) and enumerates the device families and fields returned, which distinguishes it from siblings like omada_clients and omada_ssids. It reads as a noun phrase rather than a verb, so the action ('list/retrieve') is only implied, but the resource is 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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as omada_status or omada_clients, and no conditions or prerequisites are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the resource description.

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