list_devices

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It mentions that the tool returns device information sufficient to find the washer's ID, but it does not describe the exact format of the response (e.g., whether it returns a list of objects with fields like 'deviceId' and 'model'). This lack of output detail leaves some behavioral aspects unspecified, though the core purpose is clear.

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 two sentences long, with the verb and resource in the first sentence and a clear usage directive in the second. It is concise, direct, and front-loads the essential information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description is complete for the tool's role: it lists devices and explicitly mentions finding the washer's deviceId for other tools. Given that there are no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the necessary context to call the tool correctly and understand its place in the workflow. It could benefit from stating the response format, but for a simple read-only list, the current level is adequate.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema covers this completely (there is nothing to document). According to the rubric, with 0 parameters the baseline is 4, meaning the description doesn't need to add parameter explanations. The description is consistent with this and doesn't introduce any confusion about inputs.

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 LG ThinQ devices on the account), and it distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying that it's used to find the washer's deviceId that other tools need. This makes the purpose unambiguous and directly relevant to the tool's role in the workflow.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this to find the washer's deviceId, which every other tool needs.' This provides a direct usage instruction and implies that it should be called before other tools. It leaves no ambiguity about the sequence of operations.

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