list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List' conveys a read-only operation and 'all' conveys scope, but the description does not mention pagination, return format, default filtering behavior, or permissions. It is acceptable but minimal.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The core action, scope, and device categories are all front-loaded and immediately understandable.

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 list tool with two optional parameters, the description is mostly sufficient, but the absence of an output schema and absence of any usage guidance leaves some gaps. An agent still knows what the tool does, but not exactly what the response contains or when to prefer it over related tools.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema. The parenthetical 'APs, switches, gateways' adds generic context for device types, but the schema already provides concrete examples like uap, ugw, and usw, so the description adds limited extra value.

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 ('List') and the resource ('all network devices'), and gives concrete categories ('APs, switches, gateways'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like get_device_details, list_clients, and get_network_topology.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_network, get_device_details, or get_network_topology. The only implied usage is broad inventory listing, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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