action1_list_discovered_endpoints

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently conveys the key behavioral trait: these are unmanaged devices (no agent installed), which is essential for interpreting results. It does not mention read-only status or pagination details, but the output schema covers return structure, and the list operation's safety is implied. The description adds meaningful context beyond a bare 'list' statement.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope; the second adds a practical use case. No wasted words, and every clause contributes value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description adequately covers the purpose, scope (unmanaged vs. managed), and a common use case. It lacks explicit mention of alternatives, but sibling tool names and the clear distinction suffice for contextual completeness. A 5 might be possible, but the description could slightly elaborate on what 'discovered' means in terms of network scanning, so 4 is justified.

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%; both limit and org_id are clearly described in the schema. The tool description does not add extra meaning or usage details for the parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the tool lists discovered but unmanaged devices, specifying 'seen on the network, no agent installed.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope that directly differentiates it from the sibling tool action1_list_endpoints, which presumably lists managed endpoints.

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 a clear usage context: 'Useful for finding coverage gaps: machines that exist but are not being patched.' It implies when to use this tool (to find unmanaged devices) without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions. The contrast with managed endpoints is evident from the wording, offering practical guidance.

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