list_devices

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; 'List' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the sentence names the concrete attributes returned, partly compensating for the absent output schema. It does not state filtering behavior (e.g. case sensitivity), what happens when nothing matches, or ordering, so behavioral disclosure is only partial.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the trailing attribute list is informational rather than padding, since there is no output schema to convey return shape.

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 two-optional-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the resource, its source directory, and the returned fields, which is what an agent needs to call it. The remaining gap — how results relate to downstream tools like set_active_device — is a routing nuance rather than a correctness issue.

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% — both 'query' and 'touch_only' have descriptive text and examples in the schema. The description mentions neither parameter, adding no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for full coverage.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all installed Garmin device profiles in Connect IQ SDK Devices directory', and enumerates the attributes returned (resolution, touch, screen shape, buttons). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not name or differentiate from siblings such as set_active_device, which consumes device identifiers.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the natural workflow (discovering valid device IDs before calling set_active_device). Usage is only inferable from the verb 'List', so the agent gets no routing help against sibling tools.

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