get_witzense_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get detail information' without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have implicit expectations.

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 a single, generic sentence. While it is not verbose, it is under-specified, providing no structural detail, examples, or context. This falls into the category of under-specification rather than conciseness, akin to the 'Process' example in the calibration.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., device attributes, status, etc.), typical errors, or any prerequisites. It does none of this, leaving the tool's functionality largely unexplained despite its simple interface.

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 schema defines a single required parameter 'imei' with no description beyond minLength. The tool description adds no meaning to this parameter, and schema coverage is 0%. The user must infer that 'imei' is a device identifier, but the description does not clarify its format or purpose. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 the action (get detail information) and resource (one Witzense device). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_witzense_devices (returns multiple) and get_witzense_device_locations (specific location info), but the phrase 'detail information' is vague and could specify what kind of details.

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 when to use the tool (when you need details for a single device), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like list_witzense_devices or other get_* tools. No exclusionary language is provided.

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