list_devices

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement, the specific failure error (api_key_identity_required), the pagination behavior, and the complete return field set. The readOnly hint in annotations is consistent with the 'Read-only' statement and there is no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds essential auth and follow-up guidance. The return-field list is justified because there is no output schema. 'Read-only' is somewhat redundant with annotations, but it is a minor single-word repetition that does not detract from overall efficiency.

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 paginated list with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, auth prerequisites, failure behavior, return fields, and a pointer to the related revocation action. Nothing essential is missing.

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 documentation coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains page and limit semantics. The description mentions pagination and page-related return fields but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List the devices registered to the caller's organization'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It also distinguishes this from related device operations like revoke_device by noting the relationship 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?

The description gives clear context for use: listing organization devices with pagination and plan info, and it specifies the auth prerequisite (API-key identity) as well as the failure mode for user-session keys. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative listing tools, but the context is strong and it directs the agent to revoke_device for slot cleanup.

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