get_device_by_name

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the basic read operation. It does not explain what happens if the device is not found, whether the track index is required for disambiguation, or the exact structure of the returned 'parameters.' This leaves the agent guessing about error handling and 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 concise and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first sentence followed by a clear parameter list. No unnecessary fluff. It earns a high score for brevity, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit field definitions.

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 read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description offers minimal context. It tells the agent the basic operation and parameters, but lacks important details about return format, error conditions, and the relationship between track_index and device_name. The agent might not be able to fully interpret the result without additional knowledge.

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 description must compensate. However, the parameter descriptions are nearly identical to their names: 'The index of the track' and 'The name of the device to find' add little beyond the schema's primitive types. No details about indexing (zero-based), exact matching, or case sensitivity are provided.

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: 'Find a device by name and get its parameters.' It uses a specific verb ('find') and resource ('device by name') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_device_parameters by indicating that it locates a device by name rather than by other means.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback options, or conditions under which another tool might be more appropriate. The description merely states the purpose without context.

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