Get Device State

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it 'Requires a device_name parameter', which is useful context about authentication or input needs. However, it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, error conditions, or what 'state' encompasses beyond what annotations cover.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently adds the parameter requirement. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information.

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 tool has annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values or safety. It covers the basic purpose and parameter need. However, with 0% schema coverage and nested objects, more parameter guidance would improve completeness for this read operation.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'device_name' as a required parameter, adding some semantics, but it doesn't explain the 'params' object structure or any nested properties. With 1 parameter and low coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'state for a specific device in Cisco NSO', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device_config' or 'check_device_sync', which likely retrieve different aspects of device information.

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_config' or 'check_device_sync'. There's no context about what 'state' means compared to 'config' or 'sync' status, leaving the agent without usage differentiation.

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