get_qdl_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool derives information from 'the device's rendered configuration' and specifies the nature of returned data. While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, this is implied by the 'summarise' verb and lack of destructive hints.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second elaborates on when and what. Every word adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers inputs and outputs. It could optionally note that the tool is read-only, but that is implied.

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 coverage is 0% and the sole parameter 'hostname' is not described in the description. However, the tool name and context ('device') strongly imply that hostname identifies a device, providing partial meaning. Explicit clarification would improve clarity.

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 'Summarise' and clearly identifies the resource as 'a device's QDL/flash capability'. It lists concrete outputs: whether qdl is supported, deploy/boot method parameters, and available methods. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_device which gives generic device info.

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 explicitly states 'Useful before flashing a Qualcomm board' which provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not list when not to use or alternative tools, but the guidance is strong and scoped.

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