List devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the endpoint 'GET /v2/devices,' confirming a read operation, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, response structure, or any access requirements. It neither contradicts nor significantly enriches the annotations.

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 very concise, consisting of two short sentences and an endpoint reference. 'List devices' and 'Returns a list of your devices' are slightly redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and front-loaded. It earns a high score for minimal waste, though the redundancy prevents a perfect 5.

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?

Despite having no output schema and 15 parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and return value ('Returns a list of your devices'). The schema handles parameter documentation comprehensively. However, it omits context like pagination behavior or filtering scope, which are inferable from the schema but not explicitly stated, leaving room for improvement.

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 input schema fully documents all 15 parameters and their meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List devices' and 'Returns a list of your devices.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like showDevice (single device) and deleteDevice, establishing its role as the comprehensive listing operation.

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 implies usage by stating 'List devices,' which clearly signals when to use it (to fetch a list), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusionary conditions. No guidance is provided on when to prefer listDevices over showDevice or other list tools, relying instead on the tool name and context.

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