get_offline_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: results are sorted by most recently seen and filtered by the configured hoursBack window. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though 'List' implies safe) or any error/edge-case behavior, leaving some room for improvement.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. No wasted text or repetition of schema basics beyond necessary paraphrase.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: listing offline devices, sorting, and filtering. It lacks explicit mention of return format, but that is not strictly required. It is concise yet sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already fully describes the hoursBack parameter with default and max values (100% coverage). The description repeats the filtering concept but adds no extra meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('List devices that have gone offline recently') and clearly differentiates from siblings like get_devices by specifying the offline condition and sort order. It is unambiguous and scoped.

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 when to use this tool (when you need offline devices) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It does not state 'use get_devices for all devices' or provide any when-not guidance, so it only meets the implicit usage level.

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