balena_get_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'including its current status,' which is a behavioral detail about the return value. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., what happens if the ID does not exist) or any additional side effects. Since annotations carry the primary safety information, a 3 is appropriate.

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 that places the core action and scope at the beginning. It wastes no words and every element adds value. This is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, clear read-only operation), the description is nearly sufficient. It states the resource, the lookup key, and that the response includes status. The only gap is not specifying the shape of the returned device object or error handling, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, the description covers the essential information an agent needs to decide to call it.

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%, and the description provides no additional meaning for device_id beyond restating that it is a 'numeric ID.' The schema already defines the type and bounds, and the description adds almost nothing. It does not clarify what the ID refers to, any format constraints, or how to obtain the ID. With no schema descriptions and a minimal description, the agent receives insufficient guidance for this parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('device'), and specifies the retrieval method ('by numeric ID'). It also adds 'including its current status,' which clarifies the scope of the response. This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like balena_list_devices (list all) and balena_get_fleet (different resource), so an agent can immediately understand what this tool does.

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 states the trigger condition ('by numeric ID') but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like balena_find_device_by_name, which retrieves a device by name. It implies that you should use this tool when you already have a numeric ID, but it does not state when not to use it or mention any alternative. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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