tuya_get_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. It indicates a read operation ('Get detailed information') with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state read-only status or error behavior. More importantly, the description says lookup can be by 'device_id or name', yet the schema only accepts a device_id parameter, creating a potential mismatch in expected input; this ambiguity is not fully disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence of about 26 words. It leads with the action and object, then specifies the lookup method and example, then lists output attributes. No unnecessary words or filler; every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema provided, the description is largely complete. It covers the core purpose, parameter flexibility, and a representative example. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and error cases, but these are non-critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema for return value details.

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 only parameter, device_id, has no schema description (0% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that the parameter accepts either a device ID or a friendly name, providing a concrete example ('Living Room Light'). This adds critical meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying that the string parameter is flexible despite its name.

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 purpose: to get detailed information about a specific Tuya device. It lists concrete data fields (capabilities, category, model, firmware version), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_device_status, which focuses on real-time state. The inclusion of an example name ('Living Room Light') further clarifies the resource type.

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 implies usage for retrieving device metadata, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives such as get_device_status or tuya_list_devices. There is no when-to-use guidance or exclusion note. The mention of specific fields (model, firmware) hints at a configuration/info use case, but this is only implied.

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