devicegroup_devices

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true) clearly indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description aligns by stating 'list devices.' However, it adds no further behavioral context beyond what the annotations and schema provide, such as error handling or pagination. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the action. It is concise but could potentially include a bit more context (e.g., about the 'full' parameter) without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, 1 required, output schema present), the description is functional but lacks completeness. It does not mention pagination, default behavior of the 'full' parameter, or what happens if the group doesn't exist. An output schema likely covers return values, so the description's gaps are moderate.

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 both parameters ('name' and 'full') having clear descriptions. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, as it merely repeats the action. Baseline 3 is warranted.

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 'list devices in a device group from LibreNMS,' specifying the action, resource, and source. Among sibling tools like devicegroup_add_devices and devicegroup_remove_devices, this tool's purpose is distinct as a read-only listing operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from these siblings, though the context is implied.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like devicegroup_add_devices and devicegroup_remove_devices indicate related but different operations, but no explicit usage context is given. The agent is left to infer appropriate use cases.

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