Get Selected Device

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior: the possible empty/null result when no tab is focused, and representative return fields. It does not contradict annotations and supplies context beyond the structured fields.

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 compact yet information-dense: it leads with the return value, clarifies the empty case, then gives the call context and sibling alternatives. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is fully sufficient: it explains what is returned, the null/empty case, when to invoke it, and how it differs from related tools. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. With no params, the baseline is 4; the description does not invent parameters and correctly focuses on output and usage 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 names a precise verb ('Return'), a specific resource (the single device tab currently focused in Dev Studio), and an explicit empty/null outcome. It also differentiates itself from list_devices and connect_device, so an agent can identify the tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

It explicitly states when to call the tool ('resolve the implicit target before a device op when the user says "this device" / "the current one" and gave no IP') and names the alternatives for full inventory (list_devices) and changing focus (connect_device). This is clear, actionable routing guidance.

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