get_primary_training_device

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the action. With no annotations, the agent cannot know if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, or has side effects. This lacks the transparency needed for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise (6 words) with no wasted text. However, conciseness comes at the cost of missing helpful structural details (e.g., what 'info' includes). It earns its place but could be slightly expanded without losing brevity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. The agent is left wondering what fields or data are returned under 'info'. For a tool with no parameters, the description should clarify the return value to ensure confident use.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is fully covered (100%). The description correctly adds no redundant parameter details. According to guidelines, 0 parameters yield a baseline of 4, and no additional information is needed.

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 'Get the primary training device info' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (primary training device info). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_devices (lists all devices) and get_device_last_used (last used device). However, 'info' is vague and could be more specific about what information is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative device-related tools (e.g., get_devices, get_device_settings). The agent must infer context from the name alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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