list_devices

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool returns all devices and enumerates the output fields, but it does not mention potential pagination, sorting, response size, or explicitly confirm read-only behavior. The absence of such details when there are no annotations leaves a gap.

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 short sentences: the first states the action, the second lists the returned fields. It is front-loaded, free of redundant information, and every sentence contributes meaning, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 zero-parameter list tool, the description adequately specifies the return structure and scope. It could be more complete by referencing sibling tools for filtered queries or noting any pagination/performance characteristics, but these are not essential for correct invocation. The presence of an output schema (even though not explicitly shown) and explicit field listing makes it fairly complete.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter specifics to elaborate. The description instead adds value by explaining the output structure (fields), which is the relevant semantic content for a no-input list tool. Baseline of 4 for zero-param tools 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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'all devices managed by Oxidized', which explicitly defines the tool's scope. It lists the included fields (name, model, group, ip, last backup time, status), making it unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that target specific devices or configurations.

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 clear context that this tool is for retrieving the complete device list, which implies its use case. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like find_devices for filtered queries or get_device_status for single-device status, so it lacks explicit when-not/exclusions guidance.

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