list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and usefully discloses the critical scoping rule: returns only what the API key's DeviceGrant(s) cover, never the rest of the account. It does not describe response structure, pagination, or error behavior, so it adds substantial context but is not exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The scoping constraint and the primary usage recommendation are both front-loaded, so an agent gets the critical information immediately.

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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential scope and discovery purpose well. It implies the return is valid deviceId values but does not describe the full response shape, leaving a minor gap in an otherwise complete definition.

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%, so the single projectId parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list devices) and immediately scopes it to what the API key's DeviceGrant(s) cover, distinguishing it from account-wide or sub-device listings. An agent can identify this as the grant-scoped device enumerator without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first to discover valid deviceId values instead of guessing or asking the user to paste one in,' giving clear when-to-use context and an implied alternative behavior. It does not name a sibling tool as an alternative or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the top tier.

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