device_graphs_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond purpose, such as examples of possible graph types, but does not disclose additional traits like rate limits or error behavior. It does not contradict annotations.

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 main verb and resource, and provides an example. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), has a clear purpose, and an output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the `hostname` parameter fully described as 'Device hostname or device ID'. The tool description does not add extra detail about the parameter's usage or format, so it does not exceed the schema baseline of 3.

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 lists graph types available for a device, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly connecting to the `graph_type` argument of `device_graph`, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to discover the values accepted by the `graph_type` argument of device_graph', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is strong enough for an agent to know when to invoke this tool.

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