listDevices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one piece of real behavioral context — only *adopted* devices are returned, implying unadopted/pending ones are excluded — but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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, well-annotated read tool this is close to adequate: the filter and the adopted-only constraint are conveyed. However, with 0% parameter description coverage and no output schema, the definition should say at minimum that siteId is required and how to obtain it.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description gestures at it via "the selected site" but never names siteId or explains its expected format or provenance. This partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves the one input underspecified.

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 and resource ("List adopted devices") plus a scope ("for the selected site"). The word "adopted" is a meaningful domain qualifier that distinguishes these from unprovisioned devices, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like listClients.

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 explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the siblings (listClients, getLanNetworks). Only a weak implication that a site must already be selected before calling.

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