get_integration_device

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but adds no details about auth requirements, error handling, rate limits, or consequences. Furthermore, it mentions a 'settings' parameter not present in the input schema, creating a misleading inconsistency.

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 relatively short and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the inclusion of an extra parameter and the 'Args'/'Returns' structure adds unnecessary length. A more streamlined description would be preferable.

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?

With 2 required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should be more complete. It omits error conditions, required permissions, and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema exists but does not cover behavioral context.

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 0%, so description is critical. It explains site_id and device_id minimally ('Site identifier', 'Device UUID') but also includes a nonexistent 'settings' parameter, which harms clarity and accuracy. The descriptions for actual parameters are too terse to aid correct usage.

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 tool retrieves a single adopted device via the integration API. The verb 'get' and the resource 'single adopted device' are specific. It distinguishes from listing tools like list_integration_devices but does not explicitly differentiate from similar get tools like get_host.

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 does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or context in which this tool is preferred over sibling tools.

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