Get Device Platform Information

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'retrieve' (a read operation). The description adds value by specifying the required parameter, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich in context.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and key requirement. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids any unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, with 0% schema coverage for inputs and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description is minimal—it covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameters, usage context, or behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance.

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 input schema is generic with 'additionalProperties: true', providing no parameter details. The description compensates slightly by naming the 'device_name' parameter, but it doesn't explain its format, constraints, or meaning, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('retrieve platform information') and resource ('specific device in Cisco NSO'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device_state' or 'get_device_config', which prevents a perfect score.

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 mentions the required 'device_name' parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_device_state' or 'check_device_sync'. There's no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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