list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It describes the listing operation but does not explicitly state it is read-only or safe, nor mention side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. For a parameterless list tool, the description is adequate but minimal.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second lists return fields and provides usage guidance. Every sentence is valuable with no wasted words.

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 0 parameters and no annotations, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, what it returns (including specific fields), and how to use the output (device IDs for other tools). The presence of an output schema further supports completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (no params to describe). The baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed.

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 all B-Hyve devices on the account, enumerating device types (controllers, hubs, etc.). It specifies the verb 'list' and the resource 'devices', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_device_status which focus on individual devices.

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 explicitly says 'Use device IDs from this response with all other tools,' providing clear guidance on when to use this tool as a first step. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context from siblings implies specific use cases.

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