Get known device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping notion of checking a device identifier for an email, but it does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or response behavior. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the scoping condition front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it is perhaps too terse for the undocumented parameter surface.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to supply the email and device identifier through the form/params/json_body parameters, nor what the check returns.

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 three parameters (form, params, json_body) are opaque generic containers. The description mentions 'device identifier' and 'email', giving semantic hints, but it does not map these to the schema parameters or explain what form/params/json_body should contain.

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 specific verb ('Check whether') and resource ('device identifier ... known for an email'), which distinguishes it from siblings like vaultwarden_get_device (retrieve details) and vaultwarden_get_all_devices (list all). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough to select the tool.

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 explains what the tool checks but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The usage context is only implicitly inferable from the purpose statement.

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