locate_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the primary action (beep/flash) and compatibility, but does not mention failure modes, network requirements, or any other side effects. For a simple actuation command this is adequate, though richer disclosure would be better.

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 two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with a compatibility note. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description covers purpose and applicable device types, which is sufficient for most use cases. It does not describe return values or error handling, but these are not critical for a beep/flash locate action.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter 'ip' with a clear description, and the tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('beep/flash') and resource ('Dark Dragons Astronomy device') to state exactly what the tool does. It also distinguishes from siblings by naming compatible device types (DragonLAIR and Mount Sensor), making it clear this is for physical location rather than status or discovery.

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 description implies usage when you need to physically locate a device and specifies which device families it works with. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough, and there are no misleading exclusions.

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