device_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the tool returns current activation/session and that include_keys reveals not only OTAA root keys but also session keys in activation.

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 compact sentences front-load the core behavior and then add the conditional key disclosure. Every clause contributes useful information with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary 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?

For a simple read-only getter with two parameters, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It states what the tool returns, how the include_keys flag alters the response, and the scope as a single device lookup. No prerequisites or error-case elaboration are necessary here.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains include_keys precisely and notes its side effect of revealing session keys. However, dev_eui is left to the parameter name and type; the description does not clarify the expected value format or identifier semantics.

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 clearly identifies the specific operation ('Get a device') and the resources involved: the device, its current activation/session, and optional OTAA root keys and session keys. This differentiates it from device_list (plural fetch) and mutation tools like device_update or device_delete.

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 implies usage when a single device's current session or key material is needed, and the 'if include_keys' clause provides conditional guidance for requesting keys. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over device_list or other getters, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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