getDevice

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

The description discloses that the tool is deprecated and that no dedicated per-device endpoint exists in the spec, which provides some behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it lacks details on side effects, safety, or what happens when the device is not found.

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 short with two sentences, no redundancy, and the deprecation warning is front-loaded. It is efficient but could be more structured by separating the deprecation from the functional description.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return value format, behavior when the device is not found, or how the 'filtering' works. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.

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 67%, so the schema already documents two of three parameters (siteId, customHeaders). The description adds no additional meaning for the required deviceId parameter, which remains underdocumented. Score at baseline as description does not compensate.

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 is self-contradictory: it first says 'Filters the site device list in-process' implying a list, then says 'Fetch detailed information for a specific Omada device' implying a single item. The purpose is vague and confusing, especially with the deprecation note to use listDevices instead.

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 deprecation warning explicitly tells the agent to use listDevices instead, which is clear guidance for when not to use this tool. However, it does not clarify when it would be appropriate to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it explain the trade-offs between this and listDevices.

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