locate_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose side effects, duration, reversibility, or that the 'enable' parameter can turn flashing off. The behavior is minimal and somewhat self-evident, but important operational details are missing.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and purpose immediately, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers invocation details, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention what happens after the call, such as whether it returns success/failure or how long the LED flashes. It is adequate but has clear gaps around behavior and return semantics.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about 'mac' or 'enable', so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Flash the LED') and names the exact resource ('a device'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes this from the many read-only information siblings like get_device_details or list_devices.

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 phrase 'to locate it' gives a clear use case: physically finding a device by flashing its LED. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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