discover_all_devices

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists devices and parameters (read-only), but does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., track must exist), performance implications, or error handling. The output schema helps but behavioral traits like safety or state requirements are missing.

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 very concise: two sentences for the purpose and a single line for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope, with no unnecessary words.

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 the simple input (one integer) and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete for a discovery tool. It explains the input and the output scope (all devices and their parameters). It does not cover error cases like invalid track index, but for its complexity, it is adequate.

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 has 0% coverage (no description for the parameter), so the description must add meaning. It does so by explaining 'track_index: The track index (0-based)', clarifying the indexing convention and what the parameter represents. This adds value beyond the schema's type definition.

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 that the tool lists all devices on a track with their parameters, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource 'devices on a track'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_device_list' (which likely lists only device names) and 'get_device_parameters' (which requires a specific device index). The phrase 'Full device discovery for understanding what can be automated' adds further context.

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 provides clear context by stating it is for full device discovery to understand what can be automated, implying it should be used before automation tasks. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives among siblings, leaving some inference to the agent.

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