Device Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming no side effects. The description adds the scope of 'detailed information and recent activity', but does not elaborate on limits or response structure. Since annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is too terse given the complexity (5 parameters with no schema descriptions). It sacrifices completeness for brevity, missing critical details.

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?

With 5 parameters (1 required, 4 optional booleans) and no schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the meaning of the optional boolean flags (e.g., include_packages) nor provide guidance on when to use them. Output schema exists but is not addressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters or their meanings. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which may be ambiguous (e.g., 'include_raw_details'). The description provides no added value for parameter understanding.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('detailed information and recent activity for a device'). It distinguishes from siblings like device_health_metrics and get_device_full_profile by including 'recent activity', but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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