ide_device_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it returns full Rhai source and that models are shipped/built-in, which gives some behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention error handling for invalid names, the format of the response, or any permissions/rate limits. For a simple read tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes examples and purpose. Every word earns its place; 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the core function, sample values, and intended use. It lacks details like what happens for unknown names or a pointer to a list of shipped models, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it.

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 provides only the parameter name and type with 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by giving three concrete examples of valid values ('ssd1306', 'max7219', 'led'), which helps the agent understand the expected input. It doesn't fully define the value space but compensates significantly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return the full Rhai source of a shipped device model' with concrete examples ('ssd1306', 'max7219', 'led'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ik_device_info or ide_device_template by focusing on returning source code as a reference.

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 implies when to use it: when you need a worked reference for authoring your own device model. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the 'worked reference' phrasing sets expectations. With many sibling device tools, an explicit alternative mention would be stronger, so not a 5.

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