list_discovered_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing what each record carries — classification, resulting CI, and issue count — which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The identity and payload come first, with the motivating question last as a targeting cue.

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 read-only list tool with four optional filters, the description supplies the resource identity, record contents, and a use case, and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gap: nothing about pagination behavior or ordering, though the limit default is in the schema.

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 four filters (limit, run_id, source, with_issues_only) are documented in the schema. The description only alludes to issues via 'issue count' and adds no filter syntax or matching semantics beyond what the schema states. 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?

States a specific verb and resource, names the backing table (discovery_device_history), and enumerates the record contents (classification, resulting CI, issue count). The 'per-device' framing implicitly separates it from per-run siblings like list_discovery_runs, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a concrete diagnostic question it answers ('why was this server not discovered?'), which is real routing guidance rather than a restatement of the name. It stops short of stating when to use list_discovery_runs or list_discovery_logs instead, so no explicit exclusions.

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