list_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns (children of a node) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (limit/offset), handling of invalid parent handles, ordering, or any side effects. The description is too sparse to inform an agent about edge cases or operational details.

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, compact sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses efficient language. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary details, but the conciseness itself is well-executed; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, an output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to use the tool in a workflow, the meaning of required 'handle', the function of pagination, or how it relates to device_tree and other device list tools. An agent would likely struggle to call this correctly without additional context.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the 'parent' parameter semantics (root if omitted). It does not explain the required 'handle' parameter, nor 'limit', 'offset', or 'driver' meaning. The schema only provides types and defaults, but the description must compensate for low coverage; it fails to do so, leaving the agent with unclear meanings for most parameters.

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 'Children of a device tree node' which clearly conveys it lists sub-nodes of a device tree. The verb is implied by the tool name (list) and the resource is specific. It distinguishes from siblings like get_device (single) and search_devices (search) by focusing on tree hierarchy. However, it does not explicitly say 'list devices' or mention the return set, so it's a bit indirect.

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 usage hint: 'Without parent — root of configuration' implies that omitting parent returns the root node's children and providing parent returns children of that node. This gives context on parameter usage but does not mention alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to use this vs search_devices or device_tree, so it relies on the agent to infer.

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