List devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description usefully adds that each entry carries online/offline state, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. Beyond that it does not describe return shape or any auth/rate constraints, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though it sacrifices parameter coverage 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the state values returned. However, it omits any explanation of the two filter parameters and offers no usage context, leaving minor but real gaps.

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 carries the full burden for the two optional parameters (deviceId, deviceName) — and it names neither. It does not clarify whether these act as filters, nor what forms they take, leaving the agent unable to use them confidently.

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 (List) and resource (local Raccoon node + federated peers), and mentions the returned state (online/offline). It is distinguishable from adb_devices, which covers Android devices rather than Raccoon peers. No explicit sibling differentiation is offered, but the resource is specific enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling covers a similar need. The agent must infer the context from the name alone.

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