get_device_batchjobs

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the non-obvious behavioral distinction that this returns only datasource attachments, not per-run results, and points to where run output resides. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The semicolon clause about get_device_data earns its place by preventing a common misuse.

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, low-complexity list operation with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the description covers what is returned and what is not. The pointer to get_device_data fills the only likely gap an agent would encounter.

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 100%, so device_id and limit are already documented and the description need not elaborate. It does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('BatchJob datasources applied to a device'), which clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_batchjobs and get_device_data. The parenthetical '(resource)' unambiguously anchors the operation to a device resource.

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 explicitly routes per-run output to get_device_data, telling an agent when this list tool is not the right choice. The 'applied to a device' scoping makes the device-specific use case clear relative to the general get_batchjobs sibling.

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