search_devices

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains case-insensitivity, partial matching, and searched fields (hostname, IP, registeredUser, logicalGroup). It also describes the return structure. This is transparent for a search tool, though it omits any potential scope or pagination details beyond the limit parameter.

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 well-structured with a concise summary followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded and each sentence provides value. Slightly verbose but still efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: input parameters, search behavior, and return structure. It is complete enough for typical use, though it could mention default ordering or scope (all devices).

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 0%, so the description carries full burden. It thoroughly explains each parameter: query (searched fields with examples), type (device types with default), and limit (default value). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 it searches devices by hostname, IP, user, or group, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_device (single device) and list_devices (full list).

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 explains the search behavior but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_device or list_devices. The usage context is implied through the sibling tool list, but no exclusions or recommendations are given.

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