get_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses the output structure, including specific field truncations (summary first 500 chars, children names only), and explains the rationale (raw page ~238KB). It also adds usage constraints via licensing and non-commercial use. It lacks explicit error behavior or rate limits, but is comprehensive for core behavior.

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 well-structured and dense: a one-sentence purpose, a concise return-field list, a size rationale, a parameter definition, and a license note. Every sentence adds value with no filler, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only overview tool, this description covers purpose, output details, and a crucial usage caveat (non-commercial license). It does not mention sibling-specific alternatives or error cases, but the richness of return details makes it sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions and coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by defining 'title' as 'device title' and providing an example ('iPhone'), adding meaning that the schema lacks. This exceeds baseline for undocumented parameters.

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 opens with 'Get a compact overview of a device wiki page,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_guide by emphasizing the compact projection and listing exact return fields, making its purpose clear and non-redundant.

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 use cases through 'compact overview' and mentions keeping responses small for context budgets, giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, missing the full 'when vs alternatives' criterion.

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