list_all_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: it discloses local exact case-insensitive matching, the non-rejecting behavior of unrecognized status values, and the resulting false-negative risk (typo appears healthy). This is precisely the kind of behavioral nuance agents need.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. The critical warning is front-loaded and clearly structured, and parameter guidance is separated. Nothing extraneous.

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 output schema exists, return-value explanation is unnecessary. The description covers parameter behavior, edge cases, and usage advice completely for a two-optional-param list 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?

schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully: it explains status_filter matching semantics and the warning around typo behavior, and it explains key_label scoping with a pointer to the key-listing tool. Both parameters are meaningfully described.

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 opens with 'List all devices across the entire fleet' and clarifies it aggregates devices from all consoles. It clearly distinguishes this from device-listing siblings by emphasizing the fleet-wide scope.

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?

Explicitly explains when to use status_filter for finding problem devices, warns against unrecognized values causing empty results, and advises omitting it for full fleet visibility. It also directs users to list_configured_api_keys for key_label options.

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