balena_find_device_by_name

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'safe OData quoting', which hints at injection protection, but gives no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, what happens on no match, or return format. This is acceptable given annotation coverage.

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, tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Find devices by exact name') and then adds a relevant implementation detail. Every word 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 simple lookup tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It does not mention that multiple devices may match or how pagination works, but 'find devices' implies a list return. Given the tool's low complexity, this is adequate but not rich.

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 for parameter meanings. It partially explains 'name' via 'exact name', but says nothing about 'top' or 'skip', leaving those to schema defaults/ranges. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('devices') with a precise qualifier ('by exact name'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like balena_list_devices by focusing on name lookup, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast them.

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?

Usage is implied: to find devices by exact name. No explicit when/not-when guidance or mention of alternatives like balena_list_devices or balena_get_device. The agent can infer appropriate use but gets no help choosing between siblings.

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