list_blocked_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, but since the annotations carry the behavioral burden and nothing is contradicted, this is a gap rather than a failure.

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?

It is short, but it is an under-specified fragment rather than a concise sentence; there is no verb and no front-loaded statement of what the call actually does. Brevity here reflects missing content, not 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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, an output schema to describe the return values, and annotations covering read-only safety. Given that low complexity, the description is minimally sufficient, though it should still say how this relates to block_device and unblock_device.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already conveys. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 is a noun fragment, 'Devices blocked from the network,' that essentially restates the tool name list_blocked_devices with no verb and no stated scope. It does not distinguish this from siblings like block_device, unblock_device, or list_connected_devices, so an agent learns nothing it could not infer from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of the related mutation tools block_device and unblock_device, no indication of whether this lists router-level blocks or firewall blocks, and no exclusions. The agent must guess the relationship to sibling tools.

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