device_discover

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

Annotations indicate it is not read-only, but the description gives no insight into side effects (e.g., triggers an async process, may impact performance, requires specific permissions). Given the annotations are minimal (all false), the description should compensate but does not.

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 extremely concise—one short sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose efficiently.

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?

With a single simple parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context. For a straightforward trigger, it is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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% with parameter description 'Device hostname or ID', which is clear. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('trigger') and the resource ('device rediscovery'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like device_update, which also modifies device state, but the specific verb 'rediscovery' sets it apart.

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 lacks any guidance on when or when not to use this tool. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., device must exist), no alternatives suggested, and no exclusion criteria. It simply states the action without context.

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