list_devices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: 'List' indicates a read-only operation, and the description discloses the key behavioral filter—returning only paired devices that can receive notifications. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but the core behavior is 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, the resource, and the key filtering criterion with no filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a zero-parameter list operation, the description provides enough scope for an agent to invoke it correctly. A note about the return representation or how results relate to sibling status tools would add context, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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 states a clear verb ('List'), resource ('all paired devices'), and a specific scoping condition ('that can receive notifications'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pair_device, send_notification, or remove_device.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus check_pairing_status or get_setup_status. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions, alternatives, or contextual cues to steer an agent.

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