fritz_get_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Read" does establish that this is a non-mutating retrieval, which is the key behavioral trait, but nothing is said about what happens with an unknown uid or what the returned record contains.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter hint second; nothing is padded or redundant.

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 single-parameter read with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what to pass but not what comes back or how failures surface. Adequate to invoke correctly, thin on expectations.

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 0% and the schema only labels the field "Uid" as a string, so the description is doing real work by stating it is the FRITZ id and giving a concrete example ("landevice1"). That example meaningfully constrains the expected format beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one device") with singular scope that implicitly contrasts with the sibling fritz_list_devices. It does not explicitly name the list tool, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 word "one" implies this is for fetching a single known device rather than enumerating devices, which is implied usage. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named, so an agent must infer the distinction from the sibling names.

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