list_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description's 'List' verb is consistent with these. The description adds the ability to choose query_type and the details flag, plus a return type statement, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, error handling, or filter semantics. It is not contradictory, but could be richer.

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 structured with a short intro, a consolidated note, and an Args/Returns section. However, the Args list repeats schema content, making it more verbose than necessary. It is not overly long, but not as concise as it could be.

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 read-only nature, six optional parameters, and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, query modes, and filter options well. It explains the return type and the details flag, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools or how filters interact. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a listing 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description's Args list largely duplicates this information, adding no new meaning beyond examples like 'cisco_ios' and 'arista_eos' that already appear in the schema. 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 clearly states 'List network devices and inventory information' with a specific verb and resource, and further explains the consolidated access to devices, groups, or all. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous and matches the tool name.

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 gives some usage context ('Consolidated tool', 'Use details=true for full device attributes') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like show_commands or fetch_data. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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