List devices (account)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the account-level scope and contrast, but does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication needs, or return characteristics.

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?

It is a single short sentence with the scope and contrast front-loaded. There is no wasted text, and the parenthetical efficiently disambiguates the tool from the per-site alternative.

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 tool with no required parameters, complete schema descriptions, and rich annotations, the description covers its scope and disambiguation. However, with no output schema, it omits any indication of return content or pagination behavior, leaving a modest gap.

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%, with descriptions for time, hostIds, pageSize, and nextToken. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 identifies an account-level devices view and explicitly contrasts it with the deep Network-API per-site device list. The verb is implied by 'view' rather than stated as 'list', but the resource and scope are clear enough to distinguish it from the per-site sibling.

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 gives an explicit exclusion ('not the deep Network-API per-site list'), which signals when the per-site sibling is more appropriate. It does not name that sibling directly or state positive usage conditions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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