ide_device_template

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only gives a noun phrase and does not explain what the tool does operationally—whether it returns a file, prints a template, or requires any action. There is no mention of return format, side effects, or limitations.

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 short sentence/fragment that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is slightly under-specified in terms of full sentence structure, but for the information provided, it is concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is the only context. It mentions the language (.rhai) and purpose (virtual-device script starter), but lacks details like how the template is accessed, what the user is expected to do with it, or any related commands. This is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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, making parameter documentation unnecessary. The schema is trivially complete (100% coverage for a properties object with no properties). The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no param semantics are missing.

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 identifies a specific resource: a starter devices/*.rhai virtual-device script. It conveys that the tool provides a template to adapt for device scripts, which is clear even without a strong verb. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like ide_device_script or ide_examples because it explicitly mentions 'starter' and 'adapt'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'to adapt' implies it is a starting point for creating a device script, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or contrast with other IDE tools. Users are left to infer use cases.

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