roboshadow_get_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns PII and requires admin privileges, which is meaningful auth and sensitivity context beyond the tool name. It doesn't detail the response shape, but the read-only nature is clear from 'Get'.

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 short clauses with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the access warning is compactly appended.

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 simple two-parameter read with full schema coverage, this is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description doesn't hint at what fields the 'detailed information' includes, which leaves some ambiguity among the many get_device_* siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about a single device.' This clearly differentiates it from list_devices and the device-specific report siblings, though 'detailed information' remains broad and doesn't enumerate what base device details are included.

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?

It provides access context ('PII-bearing - admin-gated') that tells an agent the tool is restricted to admins, but it doesn't name alternatives or state when this tool should be preferred over sibling get_device_* tools. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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