who_is_new

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, local, non-destructive read. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond that: 'Runs a scan first', warning that the call triggers an active network scan rather than returning cached data. It stops short of saying how long that scan takes or whether it blocks.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what qualifies as 'new' and followed by the side effect. No 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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the filter semantics and the scan side effect. The only gap is the absence of any routing guidance among the many device-listing siblings.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden — and it does, spelling out the accepted formats ('7d', '24h', '30m', or an ISO date) for the only parameter. It does not restate the 7d default, which the schema supplies.

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 states a specific resource and filter: devices first seen after a given time window. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like known_devices or list_devices, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the 'first seen' framing — you use it to find newly joined devices — but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to alternatives such as known_devices or device_history.

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