openwisp_list_devices

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read nature through 'List' and the endpoint, but gives no information about pagination behavior, default page size, auth requirements, or limits. It also doesn't state whether results are scoped to the authenticated user's organizations.

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?

One sentence plus the category tag and endpoint. Front-loaded with the primary action and resource, no wasted text.

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 list-only tool with 11 fully-documented optional filters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and identifies the endpoint. It misses when to use it versus alternatives like list_location_devices or get_device, which would strengthen the definition.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 11 filters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't repeat or add meaning about individual filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate – the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (registered network devices) with concrete scope examples (routers, APs, switches) and points to the underlying API endpoint. Distinguishes it from sibling get_device (single fetch) and create/update/delete_device.

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?

Implied usage: listing devices within OpenWISP Controller is clear, but there's no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives (e.g., when to prefer get_device, or use of filters). No exclusions or routing guidance toward siblings.

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