Get device names

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP method and 'Body fields: none,' which is consistent but minimal; it does not mention output shape, pagination, or authentication. With annotations lowering the burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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 short and scannable: action, endpoint, body note, and reference URL. The opening phrase repeats the title, but the endpoint and reference are useful. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could drop the redundant 'Get device names.'

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 simple read-only GET with no required parameters and a self-documenting query schema, the description is mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not describe the return shape or clarify how this differs from get_devices or get_device_types. The reference URL partially compensates for these gaps.

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 query parameter is fully documented in the schema, including documented query names and pagination behavior. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond noting the request body is empty, which is not about the query parameter. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Get device names' and gives the exact endpoint 'GET /api/xm/1/device-names', providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what a device name is or differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_devices or get_device_types, so it lacks explicit sibling 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_devices or get_device_types. The description gives no use cases, prerequisites, exclusions, or context to help an agent decide between the many sibling tools.

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