ik_device_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the output includes memory layout and core family, which is useful, but it does not mention potential errors, exact return formatting, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds value but leaves several behavioral details unspecified.

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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and provides a clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes to understanding the tool, with no redundant or filler 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 low complexity (one required string parameter), no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential input semantics and expected return content. It is complete enough for basic usage, though it could be enhanced by explaining how to find available device names or what happens when an invalid name is provided.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates partially by stating that the device is 'the value for target <device>', indicating that the 'name' parameter is a device identifier used in a target context. However, it does not explicitly name the parameter or provide format examples, so it adds only modest meaning beyond the schema's bare 'name' property.

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 returning 'memory layout and core family' for 'one device', using a specific verb-like intent ('Memory layout and core family') and resource ('one device'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ik_devices and ide_devices because it narrows to a single device rather than listing devices.

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 'for one device' and the parenthetical 'the value for target <device>' provide clear context that this tool is used when targeting a specific device. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like ik_devices for listing all devices, but the singular focus implies that distinction, so there is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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