pt_device

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish the safety profile. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (IP, peer, state, switchport mode, free ports, module slots), but does not describe output shape, invalid-name behavior, or error handling.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The important scope and return contents are presented immediately.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, annotations cover safety and the description lists the returned data categories. However, with no output schema, it still leaves the parameter meaning and exact return structure under-specified.

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% and the description never explains the sole required parameter, name. It is clear that a device must be identified, but the description adds no semantic detail about name format or matching behavior, and so does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 identifies a single-device inspection tool and enumerates the main return categories: physical ports, free ports, and module slots. It is specific enough to distinguish from broad topology/show tools, though it never states the verb explicitly and does not call out the nearby pt_device_modules sibling.

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?

It implies usage by saying 'One device in depth', but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of pt_device_modules, pt_topology, pt_show, or pt_running_config. There are no alternatives or exclusion conditions named.

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