find_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses relevant behavior: 'Matching is case-insensitive' and search by exact/partial name or IP. While it doesn't mention no-match behavior or pagination, the output schema exists and this is a low-risk read-only search, making the disclosure adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the key behavioral detail (case-insensitive) plus usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 search tool with two parameters, an output schema, and clear usage guidance, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and a key matching behavior. No missing critical information that would hinder correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it clarifies 'exact or partial' matching, but the schema already lists query as 'part of a device name, full device name, full group/name, or IP.' The 'group' parameter is only in the schema, not the description, so no new meaning is added.

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's purpose: 'Find Oxidized devices by exact or partial name, full name, or IP address.' It uses a specific verb ('find'), identifies the resource ('devices'), and specifies search criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_devices' which likely lists all 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 description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this before other device tools when only part of a device name is known.' This clearly signals the tool's role in the workflow and differentiates it from alternatives like listing all devices.

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