apple_list_devices

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'list' implies a read operation, but the description does not explicitly confirm it is safe or non-destructive. It also does not mention permissions, pagination, sorting, or the behavior when no filters are applied, leaving significant gaps in transparency.

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 at four words, with no unnecessary fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, the extreme brevity slightly reduces its informativeness, preventing a perfect score.

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 (optional filters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the list's size, pagination, ordering, or response structure. For a complete understanding, the agent would need external knowledge or additional cues.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (platform and status) with their enums and meanings, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, such as how the parameters interact or example values. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List registered devices' clearly states the action and resource, using a specific verb and noun. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apple_register_device or apple_update_device by focusing on listing. However, it does not elaborate on the scope (e.g., Apple Developer account) or differentiate from other list tools beyond the resource name.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like apple_list_apps or apple_list_builds, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations. The agent receives no context about appropriate scenarios for listing devices.

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