List devices

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'List' implies read-only, and 'last-known state' adds useful context that data may be cached rather than live. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or side-effect-free guarantees beyond the name.

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 sentence that starts with the action verb, clearly states the resource, and adds relevant detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description provides sufficient context: what is listed and what fields are included. The absence of an output schema is partly mitigated by naming the returned attributes, though an explicit mention that it returns an array of device IDs would have made discovery equally complete. Minor gap, but not significant for this simple tool.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and none are missing. It correctly focuses on what the tool returns instead.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('all configured GREE air conditioners') and states exactly what information is included ('connectivity status and last-known state'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_device_status (single device) and set_* mutations.

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 tool's purpose is clear and implies use when an overview of all devices is needed, but it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives like get_device_status for individual device details. There are no clear exclusions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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