Get Device Full Profile

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. The description adds specific behavioral details: inventory is summarized, packages are capped, and pending_commands include command_type and scheduled_time.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, details, and alternatives. It is front-loaded and concise with no fluff.

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's complexity (combining multiple aspects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the key behavior: composite result, caps, and alternatives. It omits the detail_limit parameter but is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains max_packages default and purpose, and implicitly mentions device_id. However, it does not explain detail_limit, leaving one parameter undescribed.

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 combines device detail, inventory summary, packages, and policy assignments into a single call. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from siblings like get_device_inventory or list_device_packages.

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 explicitly recommends using get_device_inventory or list_device_packages for full data, and explains the cap on packages (max_packages default 25) and the structure of pending_commands entries.

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