Describe a SCAPS device

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the file content categories returned, explains script-style field names and units, and notes that graded layers report their base value.

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 short and front-loaded: it first states the core read action and returned content, then adds the important field-name/unit behavior. It contains no filler.

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 rich annotations, high schema coverage, single parameter, and existing output schema, the description provides enough context for correct selection and invocation. It explains what the tool reads and how fields are represented without redundantly documenting the output schema.

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?

The single parameter already has 100% schema description coverage, including an example definition filename. The description does not add further meaning about the `definition` input itself; its extra detail concerns returned fields and round-tripping values rather than the parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it reads a `.def` file and enumerates the contents it exposes (layers, bulk defects, interfaces, contacts, realism checks). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as `scaps_edit_device` or `scaps_create_device`.

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 read-oriented purpose implies when the tool is useful, and the note about passing values back as parameters hints at a workflow with editing/creation tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative tools.

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