list_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the fields returned (hostname/IP/MAC/connection type) and says nothing about read-only safety, scope (e.g., whether offline devices are included), pagination, or authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every token (resource name plus returned fields) earns its place.

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?

For a simple, zero-parameter list tool this is minimally adequate: it names the resource and the fields returned, which is the core information an agent needs. However, without an output schema, the description does not fully enumerate the possible connection-type values or clarify the scope of the listing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the description has no parameters to clarify. This meets the baseline of 4 for a parameter-free tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('接続デバイス一覧'), and parenthetically enumerates the data returned. However, it does not distinguish itself from potential siblings like list_endpoints, get_dhcp_leases, or get_mesh_nodes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when an alternative sibling is preferable, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the tool's role entirely from the name and the terse description.

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