Strong tool naming with consistent verb_noun patterns (device_list, device_create, app_install). All 29 tools have descriptions and input schemas with typed parameters. However, descriptions are terse (avg ~40 chars, well below the 194-char baseline), lacking context on WHEN to use tools or prerequisites. Parameter descriptions are present but minimal. Output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure for chaining. Error handling guidance is absent. Risk annotations (READ_ONLY, WRITE, DESTRUCTIVE) are present but not integrated into descriptions. No pagination guidance for list tools despite managing multiple devices/snapshots.

• Expand tool descriptions to 100 - 200 chars. Include WHEN to use (e.g., 'Call device_list first to see available devices, then device_get to inspect one'), prerequisites (e.g., 'Requires a stopped device'), and what the LLM should expect in the response.
• Document output schemas for all tools. For list tools, specify the response structure (array vs object), field names, and types. E.g., 'Returns {devices: [{id, name, state, ...}], total: number}'.
• Add pagination parameters (limit, offset) to list tools (device_list, app_list, snapshot_list, camera_list) and document the default limit and max allowed.
• Integrate risk annotations into descriptions. Destructive tools should include a warning: 'WARNING: This operation is irreversible. The device and all its data will be permanently deleted.'
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g., 'If the device is already running, device_start returns an error. Call device_stop first, then retry.'