Get device diagnostics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the diagnostic content returned (battery, signal, firmware, error codes), which is useful, but says nothing about permissions, freshness of diagnostics or rate limits.

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 that names the diagnostic fields first and the scope last. No redundant clauses or 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description is sufficient for a 2-param read tool, with only minor missing context about prerequisites or data freshness.

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 100%, so both home_id and device_id are already documented, including the 'omit for all devices' semantics. The description's 'or of one device' merely echoes that; no additional format or dependency details are added.

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 resource (device diagnostics) and enumerates the exact data returned: battery, radio/Wi-Fi signal, reachability, firmware and error codes. Scope is clear (all devices of a home or one device), which differentiates it from sibling status tools like netatmo_get_home_status or netatmo_get_heating_status.

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 scope 'all devices of a home, or of one device' implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. call netatmo_list_devices first), and no named alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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