discover_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate the kind of information returned (arms, slots, physical metadata, safety limits), which suggests a read-only discovery operation, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no capabilities, or behaves differently from read_device. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning: it names the action, the target resource, and the categories of information returned.

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?

Given that there are no parameters and an output schema exists to describe return values, the description covers the essential purpose well. It could be more complete by explicitly noting that this is a non-mutating discovery step that should precede device operations, but for a zero-parameter tool this is a minor gap.

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 has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies here; the description does not need to explain parameters that do not exist.

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 uses a specific verb ('Discover') and identifies the resource ('available arms') plus the key output dimensions ('slots, physical metadata, and safety limits'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_device, write_device, emergency_stop, and plan_two_arm_handoff by signaling an enumeration/discovery role.

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 implies that the tool should be used to enumerate available hardware before operating on it, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives or mentions that it is a prerequisite for read_device or write_device. Usage context is present only by inference.

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