device_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full disclosure burden. 'Identify the attached KM003C' implies a read-only, side-effect-free query, and the field list signals it returns metadata rather than measurements. However, it does not state the failure behavior when no device is attached, nor whether the call is safe to repeat freely.

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?

A single sentence with no filler: verb, target device, and the exact contents of the response. Everything an agent needs is front-loaded.

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?

For a trivial zero-parameter identity query with no output schema, listing the returned fields covers the essential gap the schema leaves. The only missing piece is the not-attached/error case, which is minor for this tool's complexity.

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?

The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description's enumeration of returned fields is a small bonus but not required.

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 names a specific verb ('Identify') and resource ('the attached KM003C'), then enumerates exactly what identity data comes back: model, hardware/firmware version, serial, and trigger port. That makes it easy to separate from siblings like measure or pd_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 by the name and the word 'attached' — an agent can infer this is the discovery/enumeration call to make before other operations, but there is no explicit statement of when to call it or what to do if no device is present.

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