get_device_options

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval and enumerates option categories, but does not state whether the device must exist, what happens on invalid device_id, whether any permissions are required, or what the return shape looks like.

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, front-loaded sentence with a compact parenthetical that adds useful examples. There is no wasted text.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the broad purpose and return categories but does not explain how to obtain device_id or what the option data will look like. It is enough to attempt a call if device_id is already known, but not fully self-contained.

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%, so the single device_id parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description adds only 'for a specific device', not the expected format, example values, or that it should come from list_devices, leaving a meaningful gap for the only parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get SANE options for a specific device', and clarifies the kind of options with examples '(sources, resolutions, modes)'. This clearly separates it from sibling list_devices, though it does not explicitly name that sibling or state the relationship.

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?

It implies that the tool is used when device options are needed, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that device_id likely comes from list_devices and that this is a pre-scan inspection step.

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