Device Availability

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 safe read nature is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context—it only names the source system and the fact that it retrieves availability. It doesn't describe output format, timing behavior, or what 'availability' encompasses, but with strong annotations the bar is lower.

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 wasted words. It is not front-loaded with extra fluff, and it uses a clear verb. Brief but appropriately sized for such a simple 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 only has one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and strong safety annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context. It could mention what the response contains or distinguish from device_outages, but the overall package is reasonably complete for an agent to call 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 the schema already documents the single parameter (hostname) adequately. The description adds no semantic detail about what hostname should be (e.g., FQDN vs display name), but the schema carries the weight, so baseline 3 is 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get device availability from LibreNMS.' This clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like device_get or device_outages, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like device_get, devices_list, or device_outages. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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