Device Graphs List

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the output is a set of allowed graph_type values, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error behavior or auth requirements. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful: the first states the core action, the second provides usage context and concrete examples. No redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It defines the per-device scope, explains the purpose (graph type discovery), and connects directly to the dependent tool device_graph. Nothing essential 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 input schema documents hostname as 'Device hostname or device ID' with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no extra meaning to the hostname parameter itself; the examples of graph_type values relate to the output, not the parameter. Baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('graph types available for a device'), and the second sentence clarifies that it is the discovery tool for valid values of device_graph's graph_type argument. This distinguishes it clearly from device_graph and other graph-related siblings like port_graph.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this to discover the values accepted by the graph_type argument of device_graph', giving the agent a precise condition for when to call this tool. Concrete examples ('device_icmp_perf', 'device_poller_perf') further aid selection.

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