add_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does explain that without int_address the first free address on the line is used, and count > 1 adds multiple devices. Yet it omits side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or whether the operation is reversible. This is significant for a mutation tool.

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?

Three concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. It efficiently packs key behavioral details without fluff, though it could be structured into bullets for clarity.

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 lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description still misses critical context for correct invocation: meaning of handle and parent, any constraints, and return behavior. An agent would need additional schema inspection to safely use this 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 description adds meaning for driver (type and source), int_address (auto-assignment if null), and count (multiplicity). However, handle and parent—both required—are not explained beyond the vague 'under the specified tree node', and description default is ignored. Schema coverage is effectively 0%, so the description compensates only partially.

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: 'Add a device under the specified tree node'. The verb 'add' and resource 'device' are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_object or add_plan by focusing on devices, though it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives.

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 provides some usage context: how to specify the driver (from list_drivers) and optional behavior when int_address is omitted or count > 1. However, it lacks guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling device tools like set_device or move_device, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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