get_devices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description does not state whether it returns all devices regardless of status, whether any authentication or permissions are needed, or any other behavioral details (e.g., does it include offline devices, sorting, pagination). For a zero-parameter tool, there is little risk, but the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond a straightforward list operation.

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 extremely concise, with a single action sentence and two example questions that add value by illustrating common use cases. There is no wasted text; it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives concrete guidance. Everything earns its place.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete: it specifies the subject (Skylight devices), the context (household), and gives example queries. However, it could mention what fields are returned (e.g., device names, connection status) or any constraints (e.g., only for the current household). Given the simplicity, the description is adequate but would benefit from a hint about the return format to be fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there is nothing to describe). The description adds clarity by explaining that the output is a list of Skylight devices, which helps the agent understand the scope of the call without any parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameters exist and the description adequately communicates the action's return nature.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Skylight devices in the household'), and includes concrete example queries that distinguish it from sibling tools like get_frame_info (which likely targets a single frame) and other tools focused on calendar, chores, lists, etc. The scope is explicit (household devices), making it unambiguous.

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 implicitly guides usage by showing example questions it answers, but it does not explicitly specify when not to use this tool or contrast with alternatives like get_frame_info or get_family_members. Context is clear for listing devices, but no exclusions or alternative directions are given, so it lacks full usage guidance.

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