Get Device State

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by stating it 'Requires a 'device_name' parameter,' which implies a prerequisite but does not elaborate on permissions, rate limits, or response format. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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 brief and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement. There is no unnecessary information, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from usage notes.

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's complexity (1 parameter, nested objects in schema) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits beyond annotations, and guidance relative to siblings. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions the 'device_name' parameter without explaining its format, constraints, or how it relates to the 'params' object in the schema. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation, leaving key parameter semantics unclear.

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 resource ('state for a specific device in Cisco NSO'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'get_device_config' or 'check_device_sync', which might retrieve related but different information. This omission prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the required parameter but does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'get_device_config' for configuration data or 'check_device_sync' for synchronization status. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent without usage cues.

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