Resolve Device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that secrets, passwords, and keys are omitted from output and that a credential resolution indicator is returned, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or other side-effect behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds useful information. The security note and credential-indicator sentence earn their place.

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 tool has one required parameter, an output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers output secrecy and credential resolution, but leaves parameter format and usage alternatives unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions resolving 'by nickname,' but the parameter is named 'name_or_id' and may accept an ID as well; the description neither explains the accepted formats nor clarifies the nickname-vs-ID distinction.

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 and resource: 'Resolves device connection details internally by nickname.' It clearly conveys the operation and scoping mechanism, but does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_device or list_devices, leaving ambiguity about when this tool is preferred.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_device or list_devices. The phrase 'by nickname' hints at a usage condition, but no alternatives or exclusions are named.

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