getAvailableDevices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't state whether authentication is required, whether it triggers any side effects (e.g., device discovery), or what specific data is returned. This is minimal disclosure, leaving the agent to infer safety and side effects.

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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition. This is ideal conciseness for a straightforward getter tool.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what information is returned and in what form. It only says 'information about devices' without specifying that it returns a list of device objects, their IDs, names, or current status. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to use the results effectively, especially given sibling tools that likely require device IDs.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics since none exist. It adds no parameter-specific information, but this is not a deficiency given the tool's parameterless nature.

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 clearly states the tool returns information about Spotify Connect devices, which is a specific verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like playback controls and playlist management, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. The phrase 'get information' is slightly vague but conveys the core action effectively.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool or which alternatives exist. There is no mention of using it before playback commands (e.g., to get device IDs for playMusic) or any context on how it fits into a workflow. The description simply states the function without any usage context.

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