listPendingDevices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds scoping context ('this site') and the return shape, but says nothing about whether unadopted devices are filtered by discovery window, pagination, or permissions.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded. Minor redundancy: 'not yet adopted' and 'waiting to be provisioned' say the same thing, so the final sentence does not fully earn its place.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates returned fields (device type, MAC, IP, model), which is exactly the kind of detail an agent needs. For a simple read-only one-parameter tool that is close to sufficient; only sibling differentiation is missing.

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 single siteId parameter has 100% schema coverage with a pattern and default-site fallback already documented, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's reference to 'this site' loosely reinforces site scoping but adds no new meaning.

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 devices discovered on the network but not yet adopted into this site'), and the adoption status makes it distinguishable from the many other device tools. It stops short of naming the closest sibling (listDevices) as the alternative for already-adopted devices.

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 phrase 'devices waiting to be provisioned' implies the use case (pre-adoption onboarding checks), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no routing to listDevices or searchDevices for the adopted-device case.

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