ide_device_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or any side effects. It only states what the contract covers, not how the tool behaves. The reference nature is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 dense sentence that leads with the core purpose ('complete virtual-device authoring contract') and then lists concrete covered topics. Every phrase adds information, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns or how it behaves when invoked. It does thoroughly describe the scope of content, but falls short on return behavior and usage context.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to add parameter-specific meaning since there are no inputs to explain.

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 identifies the tool as the complete virtual-device authoring contract for devices/*.rhai and enumerates the covered aspects (meta(), pin/terminal modes, behavior handlers, framebuffer/display API, execution model). This distinguishes it from more specific sibling tools like ide_device_template or ide_device_script. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'view,' so it reads more like a definition than a tool instruction.

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 phrase 'authoring contract' implies this tool is used when working with virtual-device scripts, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives like ide_device_template or ide_device_script. No exclusions or alternative guidance are given.

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