passgage_list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List devices' and gives no information about side effects, read-only nature, return format, pagination behavior, or any edge cases. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, concise, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is perhaps too terse and could have included a bit more context, so it doesn't earn a 5. It is still efficient and well-structured.

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 that there is no output schema, no annotations, and the description is extremely brief, the tool explanation is incompleteness. It does not describe the Ransack filter format (though the schema does), pagination defaults are in the schema, and it provides no insight into return values or special behavior. For a list tool with a sibling set this large, more context is needed.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters (page, filters, per_page), so the schema already documents them. The description simply echoes 'optional filtering and pagination' without adding new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description states the operation 'List devices' with a specific resource and adds 'optional filtering and pagination', which is clear. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling list_* tools beyond the resource name, so it loses a point for lacking differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_device for a single device, create/update/delete for mutations). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, so the usage guidance is missing.

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