passgage_get_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the read operation without mentioning side effects, return format, authentication requirements, or error behavior. The description adds no context beyond what is self-evident.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no unnecessary words. It is efficient and immediately understandable, exactly matching the tool's straightforward function.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully documented parameter and no output schema. The description is minimally adequate but does not mention the return value or any edge cases. For a simple getter, it is just enough, but it could be improved by stating that it returns the device object.

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 schema provides a complete description of the 'id' parameter, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional semantics, but since the schema already documents the parameter well, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states the action ('Get') and the specific resource ('a specific device by ID'), which is unambiguous and differentiates it from list devices, create, update, and delete operations. It exactly matches the tool's name and provides a precise scope.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as passgage_list_devices for enumerating all devices or passgage_get_device for retrieving one. The intended usage is only implied by the name and parameters, not explicitly stated.

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