Get Device Platform Information

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds that it 'requires a device_name parameter', which is useful context beyond annotations, but it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what specific platform information is returned.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the purpose and key requirement. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more detailed without losing conciseness.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint) and an output schema, the description covers basic purpose and parameter requirement. However, with 0% schema description coverage and no details on output or behavioral context, it's minimally adequate but leaves gaps in understanding how to use the tool effectively.

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 only mentions that a 'device_name' parameter is required without explaining its format, constraints, or how it relates to the nested 'params' object in the schema. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'platform information for a specific device in Cisco NSO', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_device_config or get_device_state, which also retrieve device-specific information but different aspects.

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 mentions the required 'device_name' parameter, which provides some context for usage, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_device_config or get_device_state. No guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases is provided.

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