list_connected_devices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description usefully discloses what each record contains, but says nothing about ordering, completeness (e.g., whether stale or offline entries appear), or cost of the call. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is adequate but thin.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-field list is the most useful information and arrives immediately. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+object, which slightly weakens the framing but costs no space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the tool is a simple single-optional-parameter read. Still, the semantics of active_only and the relationship to the several overlapping device-list siblings are left unaddressed, which is the main gap for an agent choosing a tool.

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 0% for the single parameter active_only, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The phrase 'whether they are active' describes the output field rather than the filtering behavior of active_only, leaving the agent to infer that setting it true excludes inactive devices.

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 names a concrete resource (devices the router knows) and enumerates the returned fields (MAC, IP, hostname, active state), so the agent can tell it is a device-inventory read. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes this from siblings that expose overlapping device data, such as list_arp_table, list_dhcp_leases, or list_blocked_devices.

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 guidance on when to call this versus list_arp_table, list_dhcp_leases, or list_blocked_devices, all of which return similar per-device data. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of how the results relate to those sibling lists.

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