List devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the returned content (channels and sensors per device). It does not describe what the raw flag changes or how large the payload is, but with annotations present the bar is lower.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first defines scope and payload, the second routes the agent onward. Front-loaded with the primary noun and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it sketches the shape (devices with channels and sensors). It leaves the raw vs condensed distinction entirely to the schema and doesn't hint at nesting depth, a minor gap for a discovery tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% – the schema already explains that raw returns the daemon's raw JSON instead of the condensed summary. The description adds nothing about raw, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (hardware devices CoolerControl knows about), then enumerates device categories and what each entry carries (speed-controllable channels, temperature sensors). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listers like list_profiles, list_functions, and list_custom_sensors.

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?

"Use the uids and channel names here for other tools" gives a clear downstream-usage cue that links this tool to the rest of the toolset. It offers no explicit when-not or alternative comparison (e.g., vs list_custom_sensors), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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