device_config_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value on top: the underlying request type and the special file_size=0 sentinel value, which the agent cannot get from annotations.

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?

Three compact fragments, front-loaded with the resource and the protocol call, then the sentinel semantics and the read-only flag. No waste, though the raw reqType jargon is unexplained and somewhat cryptic without protocol context.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should indicate what metadata is returned (filename, size, timestamp, etc.). It only discloses the file_size sentinel, leaving the shape of the response largely unspecified for an agent that must decide whether to call this before reading config.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that device_id comes from device_list. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieves board config file metadata, with the underlying protocol named (GET_DEVICE_CONFIG reqType=GET_FILE_INFO). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like device_config_block and device_config_read by returning metadata rather than content, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The 'file_size=0 means no config stored' note hints at a pre-check use case before reading or writing config, but the agent must infer that the alternative tools (device_config_read, device_config_block) are the follow-ups.

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