get_device_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions output fields but does not disclose read-only nature, behavior for null or invalid profiles, empty result handling, or error conditions. This is a significant gap.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the action and object. It contains no fillers or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return structure and edge cases. It only mentions two output fields but does not specify whether a list is returned, how null is handled, or what happens on error, leaving the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description clarifies that the 'profile' parameter refers to the profile whose devices are fetched, adding meaning beyond the bare schema name. However, it does not explain the null default or expected format (e.g., ID vs name), so compensation for the 0% schema description coverage is only partial.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('therapy devices recorded for a profile'), and the output scope ('including model and last import time'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on summaries, settings, or sessions.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any explicit direction.

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