list-devices

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosure. It fails to mention important behavioral details such as pagination, permissions, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. The description is too brief to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 at one sentence, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with key information. However, the brevity sacrifices some necessary detail, preventing a perfect score.

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?

While the description covers the purpose and parameter semantics via the schema, it lacks completeness in behavioral transparency and output expectations. Given the presence of sibling tools and the absence of an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 input schema's parameter descriptions already cover all three parameters completely (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists devices across hosts and provides concrete examples (switches, APs, gateways, cameras), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list-hosts' or 'list-sites' that list other entity types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention filtering options or prerequisites. It only states the basic action, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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