get_device_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It doesn't describe behavior on not finding a device, whether it searches within the specified track, the return format, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a lookup tool.

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 very concise: one sentence and a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action and doesn't contain filler. However, the extreme brevity leaves out necessary context, so it's concise but not optimally structured for completeness.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is thin. It lacks an output schema, annotations, and detailed parameter semantics. It doesn't mention return values, error cases, or how it compares to the many sibling device-related tools. The tool is not adequately contextualized, making it hard to know when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does list parameters with brief meanings ('track_index: The index of the track' and 'device_name: The name of the device to find'), but these add only marginal value over the schema titles. It doesn't clarify specifics like zero-indexing or match behavior, so the compensation is insufficient.

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 action: 'Find a device by name and get its parameters.' This specifies the verb and resource, and the 'by name' qualifier differentiates it from sibling tools like get_device_parameters that likely use an index. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_device_parameters or get_chain_device_parameters. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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