List IIO devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the description carries a lower burden. It adds helpful context that the listing is drawn from the current board/firmware exposure, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as output size, pagination, or error cases beyond what the schema and annotations already convey.

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 two tight sentences: the first delivers the exact scope of the tool and the second immediately gives actionable use cases. No words are wasted and the purpose is front-loaded.

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 read-only discovery tool with no required parameters, a fully documented parameter schema, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and when to reach for it. An agent is not left guessing about prerequisites, behavior, or response structure.

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 parameter response_format is fully documented in the schema with enum values, default, and descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the schema coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and an explicit resource scope ('every IIO device, channel and attribute the board exposes'), going well beyond the title. It also references the collaborating sibling sdr_read_attribute, which helps distinguish this discovery tool from the other radio-control and status tools.

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?

It explicitly gives two use cases: discover exact names before calling sdr_read_attribute, or check what a firmware build provides. It does not enumerate exclusions or specify when not to use it relative to other siblings, so it falls short of a full when-to-use and when-not-to-use guide.

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