list_devices

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

Without annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states that it lists visible devices and enumerates the fields returned, which is useful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or mention error conditions, but the 'List' verb and focus on discovery make side effects unlikely.

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 two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second adds return information and a usage hint. Every word is necessary, and it is front-loaded with the primary action.

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 zero-parameter discovery tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It states what devices are listed, what fields are returned, and the recommended invocation order. The 'call this first' guidance integrates it well with the tool family.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output and usage, adding no unnecessary parameter details. It fully aligns with the schema's simplicity.

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 opens with 'List NI DAQ devices visible to this machine,' a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like describe_device. It also lists the returned fields (device name, product type, serial number, supported channel types), further clarifying scope.

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?

It provides clear context with 'Call this first — channel names are device-specific,' establishing it as the entry point for device discovery. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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