report_devices_bulk

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: for 'assets,' probes return 404 and are skipped; concurrency defaults are per-endpoint safe (3-5); returns CSV by default. These go beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, parameter behavior, and output/concurrency. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action.

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 no output schema, the description explains the default return format (CSV). It covers all parameters with relevant context. Missing details like error handling or empty results, but still adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of dataType enum values (e.g., 'probes return 404 and are skipped' for assets) and that concurrency defaults vary by dataType, which is not in the schema.

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 'Fan out a per-device API call across all devices in an org unit,' specifying the verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like report_devices_by_so, which is for listing devices, not per-device bulk operations.

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 explains when to use the tool: for a per-device call across an org unit. It provides context on dataType choices and default behavior (e.g., probes skipped for assets). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like report_devices_by_so.

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