get_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the response includes interfaces.radios (for APs) and interfaces.ports (for switches), which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention any potential side effects or limitations, but given the safety profile from annotations, a 4 is appropriate.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence provides essential information. No wasted words or 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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the response content (uplink topology, radio interfaces, port configuration, features, provisioning info) and the context of use. Combined with annotations, the agent has sufficient information to correctly invoke the tool.

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 single parameter (deviceId) has 100% schema coverage with a description: 'Device ID (UUID from list_devices).' The description reiterates this context but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get full details for a single adopted device' and lists specific content (uplink topology, radio interfaces, port configuration, features, provisioning info). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_devices' by specifying it is used after list_devices identifies a device of interest.

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 when to use the tool: 'Use this to inspect a specific device after list_devices identifies one of interest.' This provides clear context and implies the correct sequence of tools, effectively differentiating from list_devices and guiding the agent.

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