list_guests

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists guest devices within a time window, but provides no additional context such as whether results are read-only, paginated, or require authentication. The simple 'list' verb implies a read operation, but deeper behavioral traits are not disclosed.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the core action and scope. It avoids redundancy and unnecessary details, making it efficiently front-loaded with all essential information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand its basic function. It does not explain return values, but the output schema covers that. A minor gap is the absence of any behavioral notes (e.g., whether it only includes guests currently online), but the level of completeness is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has full (100%) coverage for the single 'within' parameter, including its type, default value, and description. The tool description's phrase 'specified time window' maps directly to this parameter but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource structure: 'List guest devices' clearly identifies the action and the target object. The scope is precisely qualified with 'seen within the specified time window,' which distinguishes it from similar list tools like list_devices or list_clients.

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 usage context by mentioning the time-window filtering capability, suggesting it is appropriate when listing guest devices over a specified period. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions, so it falls short of clear usage guidance.

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