quest_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output fields but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires a connected device, or what happens on error or missing device.

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 concise sentence with a front-loaded verb and a compact list of return items. No words are wasted and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity, the description is incomplete for an agent: it leaves the device_id parameter behavior unexplained, omits return format details, and does not address error or connection requirements. The absence of an output schema makes these gaps more significant.

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 device_id is optional with default null, but the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent gets no help understanding how to use or omit this 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed device info'), enumerating concrete fields such as model, OS/firmware, battery, storage, WiFi IP, and thermal status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like quest_devices or quest_thermal.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions mentioned. The description implies usage only through its purpose, but does not explicitly compare to siblings or state suitable contexts.

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