List Deck Devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the scope is stated, but the description does not explicitly confirm the absence of side effects, error conditions, or dependencies such as a valid deck being loaded. This is adequate 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 one tight sentence with the action and object front-loaded, followed by a purpose clause. Every part contributes; no filler or repetition of the schema.

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?

With an output schema present, not explaining the return structure is fine. The description gives the operation and use case, but it leaves a real gap on how to populate the required 'deck' parameter and what counts as a device in this context. This is a simple tool, so the gaps are relatively minor.

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 0% and the description adds almost no parameter guidance beyond the word 'deck'. It does not specify the expected format or valid values for the deck parameter (e.g., deck ID vs. name), which an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly. The single parameter's name is self-referential but not explanatory.

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 names a specific operation (List), a specific resource (devices and their indices on a deck's track), and a reason (FX tools need the right rack/plugin). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_device_parameters and set_device_parameter, which concern device parameters rather than device enumeration.

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 purpose clause 'so FX tools can be pointed at the right rack/plugin' gives a clear context for when to call it: before configuring FX targeting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended use is clear enough from the sentence.

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