duo_get_hardware_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it retrieves full detail, but does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the token is not found, any permission requirements, or rate limits. The description adds little beyond the action itself, leaving the tool's behavior opaque.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and the scope ('single') is stated upfront. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete but leaves room for improvement. 'Full detail' hints at a rich response but does not specify what fields are included or how errors are handled (e.g., not-found responses). While not a critical gap, an agent might benefit from knowing the expected response structure or any constraints, so it sits at an adequate-but-not-excellent level.

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 states 'Duo hardware token_id.' The description adds 'by token_id,' which is essentially the same information. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the description adds minimal extra meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Get full detail') and a specific resource ('single hardware token') keyed by token_id. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like duo_list_hardware_tokens (list) and duo_get_desktop_token (desktop token), leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 usage context is implied: one would use this tool to fetch details for a specific hardware token rather than listing tokens or getting a desktop token. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention any exclusions (e.g., 'for desktop tokens use duo_get_desktop_token'). It relies on the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling list, so it meets the 'implied usage' baseline.

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