Get device declaration state

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses crucial behaviors: ambiguous substrings return candidates rather than guessing, and PENDING declarations are excluded from filtered reads, with a pointer to 'excludedFromThisAnswer' in the result. This goes well beyond basic expectations and gives the agent a clear picture of edge cases.

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 paragraph, but each sentence is informative and earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds relational context and a critical caveat. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly more concise without losing meaning. Overall, it is well-structured and readable.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain return values, and it does so reasonably by mentioning 'status and validity', 'reasons Jamf gives', 'candidates', and 'excludedFromThisAnswer'. It also covers important edge cases like PENDING exclusions. While it does not enumerate every return field, it provides enough context for an agent to understand what to expect and how to interpret the result.

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that an ambiguous device substring returns candidates rather than guessing, which is not in the schema. It also gives a note about PENDING declarations that relates to the filter's default behavior. This additional semantic context elevates the score.

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 states the tool's function: 'Report the declarative device management (DDM) state for one device: which declarations are applied, their status and validity, and — for anything that failed — the reasons Jamf gives.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing itself as 'The companion to listBlueprints', clarifying its unique role relative to a related tool.

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 explicitly positions the tool as 'The companion to listBlueprints', giving clear relational guidance on when to use it. It also explains the input behavior (substring may return candidates) and warns about PENDING declarations being excluded, helping the agent decide when this tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions or comparisons to other related tools like getDeclarationScope.

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