Get device state

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by disclosing that output varies by device kind (routers vs switches vs end devices get different show commands), which is critical behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema. The closing 'Read-only' restates the annotation, but the device-type variability disclosure is genuine added value.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the device-kind breakdown in short parallel clauses. Dense and largely waste-free, though the trailing 'Read-only.' is redundant against the annotation.

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 no output schema, the description usefully previews what the result contains (port table fields and the per-kind show outputs), which is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it or run_command. Pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed but largely irrelevant for a single-device snapshot.

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 100% and the single `device` parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example format. The description only reinforces the 'one device' scope rather than adding syntax or lookup details, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Detailed state of one device') and enumerates the exact contents: per-port IP/mask/MAC/status/neighbour plus device-kind-specific show output. An agent can distinguish this from get_topology (whole network) or run_command (arbitrary CLI) without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of built-in 'show' output hints this is the shortcut for routine state checks rather than run_command, and 'one device' implies it's per-device versus get_topology. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative is given.

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