list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the tool's read-only nature and return format including status, count, devices, and message. It provides an example but does not mention error conditions, permissions, or pagination. Overall, it effectively communicates behavior beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections and an example. It is slightly verbose with redundant context about FortiManager, but the core purpose is front-loaded. Efficient for a two-parameter tool.

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's simplicity (two optional params, no output schema provided), the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and an example. It is complete enough for agent invocation but lacks error handling details and prerequisites.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the 'adom' default behavior and 'fields' purpose. However, it does not list available field names or validate input types beyond the schema. Adds meaningful context but could be more specific.

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 lists all managed devices in an ADOM, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_adoms or list_device_groups by specifying 'devices' and 'managed devices' context.

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 for listing devices but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like search_devices or get_device. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons with similar list tools.

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