flix_get_device

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

The description provides no annotations, so it must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets information, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what 'detailed information' includes, any authentication requirements, or potential error conditions. The agent has no idea what to expect from the response.

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 a single, concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words or filler.

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 simple get tool with one fully documented parameter, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it provide usage context relative to sibling tools, so it is not fully complete.

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 fully documents the only parameter (deviceId) with a clear description, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameter beyond what is already in the schema.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific device' uses a specific verb (get) and resource (device), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools that perform actions like pairing, blocking, or messaging. It is immediately clear what this tool does.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that flix_discover_devices lists devices and this tool retrieves details for one specific device, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is only implied by the phrase 'specific device'.

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