openwisp_get_device_coordinates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals nothing about the required 'key' access credential, permissions, rate limits, or what is returned, beyond the implied read-only nature of a GET.

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?

A single tight sentence plus the HTTP endpoint; the category tag and resource are front-loaded with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally viable, but it leaves the unusual required 'key' credential and the 'geocoded' precondition unexplained, which an agent would need to invoke it correctly.

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 both id and key are already documented structurally, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no further meaning about the unusual 'coordinate access key' or its relationship to the device id.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get device coordinates') plus a scope qualifier ('for a geocoded device'). It distinguishes itself reasonably from get_device_location and update_device_coordinates, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative routing. 'For a geocoded device' hints at a precondition but does not say what to do if the device is not geocoded, nor when to prefer this over get_device_location.

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