Device Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by disclosing the compliance rollup behavior and the caveat about uptime_minutes lagging, which are beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences plus a parenthetical, efficiently conveying the purpose and a key behavioral detail. Minor improvement would be to list the parameters explicitly.

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?

Given the tool has five parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main return values and a critical caveat. However, it lacks explanation of optional Boolean parameters, though the output schema likely fills some gaps.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. However, the description does not explain the five input parameters (e.g., include_packages, include_inventory) or their defaults, leaving the agent without semantic guidance beyond names.

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 tool returns 'detailed information and recent activity for a device' and specifies the compliance rollup, differentiating it from sibling tools like device_health_metrics or get_device_full_profile.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving comprehensive device details, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like get_device_full_profile or device_health_metrics.

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