get_device_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the 'allowed device' constraint, indicating only certain devices are valid. However, it doesn't disclose behavior like error handling or what 'capabilities' means beyond a generic term.

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 short sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key verb and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context on how to identify an 'allowed device' (e.g., via list_devices) and what kind of capabilities are returned, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema has a single 'device' parameter with no description (coverage 0%). The description adds 'one explicit allowed device', giving some context that the device must be from an allowed set, but it doesn't specify the format, source (e.g., list_devices output), or valid values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get read-only capabilities' for a device. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_devices (which enumerates devices) and get_server_status (server-level info). The phrase 'one explicit allowed device' further clarifies the scope.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies the device must already be known ('explicit allowed device') but gives no guidance on obtaining that device list or excluding other operations. No alternatives are mentioned.

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