z2m_get_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the 'Read-only.' addition is somewhat redundant. However, the description adds value by listing the internal detail categories returned, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, all densely informative with no fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose: what it does, safety, prerequisites, and when to use an alternative. 'Read-only' is brief but not padding.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description lists the key return categories and clarifies the tool's role as a discovery step before write operations. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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% for both parameters, and the schema clearly describes 'device' (friendly_name or ieee_address) and 'include_raw'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 full detail for one device') and enumerates exactly what is returned (state, properties, options, endpoints, bindings, reportings). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with z2m_list_devices and stating this is for a single device with exact name.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Call this before z2m_set_device_options, z2m_bind or z2m_configure_reporting' and 'Use z2m_list_devices instead when you want many devices or do not know the exact name.' No ambiguity.

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