get_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds that the record is 'cached,' which implies eventual consistency, and notes 'no type-specific filtering.' However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or disclose other behaviors like rate limits or permission requirements, leaving gaps.

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 two sentences plus a structured Args block. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No superfluous content.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description covers the essentials: what is returned, how to obtain the serial number, and that no filtering is applied. It could be slightly more complete by noting the read-only nature, but overall it's adequate.

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 one parameter (device_sn) with no description. The description adds meaningful context: 'The device serial number, as returned by list_devices,' guiding the agent on the value source. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though it could further specify format or constraints.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full cached detail record', and the method 'by serial number'. It also specifies 'no type-specific filtering applied', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that might filter by type. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 context by noting the serial number is 'as returned by list_devices', implying a workflow where list_devices should be used first. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to understand the prerequisite.

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