getDeviceInfo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns device details, interfaces, and incident links, and the 'get' prefix implies a read-only operation. However, it omits any mention of error behavior, permissions, or return format.

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes useful output details. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 simple single-parameter getter, the description is minimally sufficient: it states what the tool returns and implies the target is a single device. However, it lacks parameter format guidance, output structure details, and any mention of preconditions, making it acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 only defines deviceName as a string and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the acceptable format, whether it is a name or ID, or how the value relates to existing devices. It provides no meaningful parameter-level guidance beyond the schema itself.

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 that the tool retrieves detailed information about a single device, including interfaces and incident links. It identifies the resource and the general purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getNetwork or the various device-modifying tools. The phrase 'one device' implies scope, but does not state when this tool is preferred or what cases it is not suited for.

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