balena_list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context: it mentions optional fleet restriction but says nothing about pagination (top/skip), ordering, return format, or any limits. It does not contradict the annotations but also does not enrich them beyond the explicit fleet filter.

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 short sentence, highly concise with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('List devices') and appends the optional modifier. Every word earns its place, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 tool has 3 parameters (top, skip, fleet_id), no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified. It covers only the fleet restriction, leaving pagination unexplained. An agent cannot safely call this with confidence about pagination or result limits. The low complexity of the tool is offset by the incomplete parameter documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the fleet_id parameter indirectly ('restricted to one fleet') but says nothing about top and skip, which are clearly pagination controls. An agent would not understand how to paginate or limit results without inspecting the schema, which is insufficient for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 lists devices and optionally restricts to a fleet. This is a specific verb+resource with a clear scope. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like balena_get_device or balena_find_device_by_name, but the name and description make the list-all nature clear enough for an agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like balena_get_device (for a single device) or balena_find_device_by_name (for searching by name). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this is the right choice. An agent must infer that this is the generic listing tool.

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