instructions_get_responding_devices

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does convey a read-only intent and notes the 'unique' deduplication behavior. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, potential errors, pagination, or whether the 'local' flag changes data source behavior.

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. It captures the essential operation and result without redundant wording.

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 read-only getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately names the returned data (unique device FQDNs) and the query subject (an instruction). It does not explain the 'local' parameter in the description, but the schema already covers it. The main gap is lack of guidance on when to use this vs. related instruction response tools.

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 schema documents 'local' but provides no description for 'instructionId'. The tool description indirectly explains that instructionId identifies the instruction whose responding devices are returned, but it does not add explicit meaning for either parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves room for more precision.

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 a verb ('Get'), a resource ('list of unique device FQDNs'), and a scope ('that have responded to an instruction'). This is specific enough to separate it from broader tools like instructions_search or instructions_get_responses, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over related siblings such as instructions_get_responses or instructions_get_responses_aggregate. The intended use is implied by the description but there are no exclusions, conditions, or alternatives stated.

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