ts_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return of a _meta envelope for audit uniformity and clarifies that scope filtering is not supported. It doesn't mention auth or error conditions, but for a simple fetch this is adequate.

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 efficient sentences plus a clarifying note. It starts with the core purpose ('Full detail for a single device') and then provides behavioral constraints. No wasted words.

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 simplicity, high schema coverage, and existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return details, filter behavior, and scope exclusion, leaving no major gaps for a single-record fetch tool.

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 100% and the description adds value by clarifying that the device_id parameter is 'device nodeId (from ts_devices)' and that it's 'server-side filter ... not tag-shaped'. It also warns about scope not being accepted, enhancing schema meaning.

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 it returns 'Full detail for a single device' listing specific fields (addresses, OS, client version, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it's a single-record fetch using device_id, contrasting with tag-based or list operations.

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 says 'Single-record fetch' and notes that 'scope= is intentionally NOT accepted' due to semantic incoherence, providing clear when-not guidelines. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like ts_devices for listing.

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