list_innerspace_inventory

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: devices are 'Returned verbatim, including mac/serial', which warns about sensitive data exposure. It also states the response array key ('devices'). It does not mention pagination or error cases, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: scope definition, key return details, and parameter explanations are clearly separated without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential invocation context: what is returned, key name, parameter formats, and filtering semantics. Since an output schema exists, detailed return structure need not be restated. Minor omissions like pagination or explicit auth requirements are not critical for this list operation.

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 fully compensates. It explains host accepts 'console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format)' and clarifies that site_id is an optional filter matching the product siteId. This gives the agent actionable semantics for both parameters.

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 ('List') and a precisely bounded resource ('UNPLACED device inventory for a console's InnerSpace project'). It clearly defines 'unplaced' as 'not yet positioned on a floor plan', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_innerspace_devices that likely return all InnerSpace devices.

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 context is clear: this tool returns only unplaced inventory, so an agent knows when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the 'UNPLACED' qualifier strongly implies the scope. No explicit exclusions are given.

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