get_device_status

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. While it implies a read operation ('Check'), it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format (e.g., list of devices with status). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly answers 'what does this tool do?' with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage guidelines relative to siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would help the agent use it correctly.

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%, with all parameters ('limit', 'box', 'group') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'box' and 'group' interact or default behaviors. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the action ('Check') and resource ('online/offline status of devices on Firewalla network'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_offline_devices' or 'search_devices', which appear related but have different scopes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_offline_devices' or 'search_devices'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts where this tool is preferred over siblings, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.

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