openwisp_get_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but the GET method and the raw endpoint path (/api/v1/controller/device/{id}/) do disclose that this is a read-only single-resource fetch. It omits any mention of auth/permission requirements, not-found behavior, or whether the response is paginated, which leaves behavioral gaps for a tool with zero 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?

One tight, front-loaded sentence preceded by a category tag and the underlying HTTP route; no filler. The parenthetical endpoint is slightly redundant with the field list but remains useful reference detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the primary fields returned (MAC, model, status, IP). For a simple single-id read tool, that is close to sufficient; only auth/error context is missing.

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 single id parameter is already documented ('Device UUID or ID'). The description adds no format, uniqueness, or lookup semantics beyond what the schema states, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get') plus resource ('device') and enumerates the returned fields (MAC address, model, status, IP address). The qualifier 'a specific device' cleanly separates it from list_devices, while the id-scoped resource distinguishes it from create/update_device.

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 only implied: 'a specific device' signals you need an existing device id, contrasting implicitly with the list endpoint. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative tool.

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