list_properties

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that by disclosing the returned shape (type, writable flag, enum values, ranges) and the conditional expansion for device/sample addresses including methods.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and result content, and only two sentences. The inline re-listing of all fourteen kinds duplicates the schema enum and is the one wasteful element.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately (types, writability, enum values, ranges, extra device/sample entries). It omits address string syntax and whether output is paginated, minor gaps for a read-only lister.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum is repeated from the schema, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: that address supplies an implicit kind, and that device/sample addresses unlock device-specific properties and labeled choices.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (properties) and explicit scope: the properties that get_properties/set_properties recognize. It also enumerates what the listing contains (type, writability, enum values, ranges), which distinguishes it from the sibling value-reader get_properties.

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?

Explains the two selection modes clearly ('give an address (its kind is used) or a kind') and notes that a device/sample address returns richer output. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_properties, leaving that relationship inferential.

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