device_tier_configs_get

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency. Minimal information for a read operation.

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?

Very concise single sentence. It's appropriately sized for a simple getter. However, it could include a bit more context without losing efficiency.

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 is a simple ID-based getter with two required params and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. But it lacks behavioral notes and parameter clarification, leaving gaps.

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 50% (packageName has description, deviceTierConfigId does not). The description adds no explanation for either parameter, leaving the agent to infer from schema only. Does not compensate for missing schema details.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get a device-tier config by id', specifying the verb (Get) and resource (device-tier config). It distinguishes from siblings like create and list, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate its scope (by ID). Still, it's specific and accurate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., device_tier_configs_list). No mention of prerequisites, context, or when to avoid. The description provides no usage context.

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