Idm Get Device Html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose non-obvious traits: the page grows with server access level (140 -> 195 parameters), and fetching has a side effect (marks the device as described, which write tools report back). It omits error/failure behavior and does not restate read-only safety, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the imperative ('Start here: fetch...') and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of value (page contents, access-level behavior, side effect). Slightly verbose in enumerating page sections, but no wasted filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return formatting need not be explained, and the description still usefully characterizes what the page contains and how access level changes it. A brief note on failure/not-found behavior would complete the picture.

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 both parameters (device, max_bytes) are fully documented in the schema, including the truncation flag. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a concrete verb and resource ('fetch the gateway's own HTML page for a device') and frames its role as the description/discovery layer. It never names the closely-named siblings (idm_get_structure, idm_list_parameters, idm_get_parameters), so an agent must infer the distinction rather than being told it.

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?

'Start here' plus 'how you learn what a device is and what its parameters mean before reading or writing them' gives a clear when-to-use signal relative to the read/write tools. No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is provided, so it stops short of a 5.

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