prtg_get_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Get', which suggests a read operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe error handling for invalid IDs, mention rate limits, or any side effects. The description is too terse to disclose much beyond the core action.

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, compact sentence with the key action front-loaded. There is no fluff, and every word contributes to stating the purpose. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It omits any hint about the return format, potential errors, or how 'metrics and settings' are structured. Given the tool's simplicity, some information is inferable, but the description is incomplete for a production-grade tool.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (id and include) with clear descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for a schema-covered case.

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'), a specific resource ('metrics and settings of a single device'), and the key identifier ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from list tools like prtg_list_devices and other get tools targeting different resource types (group, probe, sensor).

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 implies usage when you have a device ID, and the schema notes the ID comes from prtg_list_devices, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are named in the description.

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