device_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explicitly declares Read-only, discloses the operation cost (1-2 reads), and states the merge happens locally. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a safe, cheap read tool. It doesn't cover edge-case behavior (e.g., no active device, missing sidecar data), but the core safety and cost profile is well conveyed.

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?

A single dense sentence with purpose front-loaded, followed by data sources and a compact safety/cost marker (🟢 1-2 reads, local merge). Every clause earns its place. Minor deduction for the encoded emoji shorthand that requires interpretation, but the overall signal density is excellent.

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 low-complexity tool (1 optional enum param, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is nearly sufficient: it explains the merged inputs, the read-only nature, and the operation count. The main gaps are that 'capability report' content is not specified in detail and edge cases are unaddressed, but the data-source enumeration and schema's response_format descriptions cover most of what an agent needs.

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 100%, and the schema already documents response_format's enum values thoroughly ('concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is required given the schema's completeness.

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 names a specific deliverable (device availability & capability report) and spells out the exact data sources merged (GET /me/player/devices + active id + sidecar labels/presets). This clearly distinguishes it from the raw sibling get_devices, which would be the obvious confusion point, so an agent can tell what this tool produces without opening schemas.

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?

Usage context is implied by the framing ('report' that merges multiple sources), which suggests it is the enriched/composite alternative to a raw devices list, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over get_devices, device_sync_state, or compare_devices. No when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives are given.

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