listDevices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('List') but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this requires permissions, what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination), or any side effects (e.g., whether it triggers device scans). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all connected devices') and adds clarifying detail ('both physical and virtual devices') without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of devices. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., device IDs, statuses) or any constraints (e.g., only active devices). For a read operation with no structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'platform' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain why platform filtering is needed or how it affects results). Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all connected devices'), specifying both physical and virtual devices. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'listApps' or 'listDeviceImages' by focusing on devices rather than apps or images. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'getAllConfigs' which might also retrieve device-related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'setActiveDevice', 'startDevice', or 'killDevice', there's no indication of prerequisites, sequencing, or comparative use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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