Datto-Geräte auflisten

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the returned data fields, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe pagination, freshness guarantees, authentication needs, or what 'offene Alerts' means operationally. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. The main action and the key returned fields are front-loaded.

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 complete parameter descriptions and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the resource scope and the summary columns returned, compensating for the absence of an output schema. It is only held back by not mentioning filtering behavior or routing guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 the schema already documents all four filter parameters with examples and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and per the calibration baseline, 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Listet alle BCDR-Geräte') and enumerates the returned fields (Kunde, Modell, Online-Status, Agent-/Share-Anzahl, offene Alerts), so an agent can tell this is a summary-listing tool rather than a detail-getter or asset-list tool. It also names the supported device families (SIRIS, ALTO, CLDSIRIS), which sharpens scope.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to use it versus siblings such as get-device, find-asset, or list-device-assets. It also does not mention the available filters (model, client, onlyOffline, includeHidden) as usage conditions, so the agent must infer when this is the right call.

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