inspect_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful detail that results span device details and transport-specific interfaces/services, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown device IDs or result size.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% parameter coverage and many overlapping siblings, the definition leaves gaps about when this tool beats list_known_devices or get_device_knowledge and what happens with an unknown or stale device_id.

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 0%, so the single parameter is documented only as 'Device Id'. The description's 'known device' phrasing implies the ID must reference a previously discovered device, which adds meaning beyond the schema, but no format, source, or error semantics are given.

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?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (known device), plus the scope of returned content (device details and transport-specific interfaces/services). This distinguishes it from discovery siblings like discover_devices, though it does not clearly separate it from list_known_devices or get_device_knowledge.

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 word 'known' implies the device must already have been discovered, but the description never says when to call this versus list_known_devices, get_device_knowledge, or get_device_events. There are no explicit alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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