Idm Device Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes returned fields but never states that this is a read-only/status operation, nor does it cover auth needs, freshness, rate limits, or error 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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the returned fields. It contains no filler and is appropriately sized for a simple status lookup, though it reads as a terse fragment rather than a fully structured usage statement.

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 simple one-device status getter with an output schema, the description adequately covers the return shape. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no usage routing, the agent still lacks parameter format guidance and clear conditions for selecting this 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 description coverage is 0% and the single required 'device' parameter has no schema description. The description says 'one device' but does not define the identifier format (ID, name, MAC), so it adds little beyond the schema property name.

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?

States that the tool returns the connection state for one device and enumerates the returned fields (state, port, endpoints, last update time). The purpose and resource are clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as idm_list_connections or idm_get_activity.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling status/list tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase 'one device' implies a single-device lookup, but the agent must infer when that is preferable.

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