getDevice

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' clearly signals a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, which is useful. However, it does not disclose response format, error behavior, or whether siteId influences the result, leaving gaps beyond the minimal safety indication.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it an excellent example of efficient writing.

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 tool with no output schema and sparse parameter documentation, the description leaves important gaps: when to use this versus getSwitch or listDevices, whether siteId is needed in certain contexts, and what 'detailed information' includes. The low schema coverage and absence of guidelines make this insufficiently complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation, but it does not. The phrase 'specific Omada device' loosely implies deviceId identifies the target, yet siteId is completely unmentioned and its optionality or purpose is left unexplained.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('detailed information for a specific Omada device'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It hints at differentiation from list-like siblings by emphasizing 'specific', but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'specific Omada device' implies this tool is for retrieving details about one known device rather than listing many, which is an implied usage context. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like getSwitch or searchDevices, and no when-not-to-use exclusions.

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