get_device

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full transparency burden. It only says 'full device card' and gives an address format, but does not disclose read-only behavior, potential errors, or side effects. No contradictions exist since annotations are absent.

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 concise sentence, but it omits critical details. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, yet lacks structure for parameter clarification or usage context, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 tool with two required parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain the parameter roles or any input-output mapping. The address format is given but not elaborated, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by UID or address' but does not map these to the two required parameters 'device' and 'handle', nor clarify the format of the address beyond an example. An agent cannot determine what to pass for each parameter.

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 states the tool retrieves a full device card by UID or address, which is a clear verb-resource pairing. It distinguishes from list_devices and search_devices by implying a single-device lookup, but does not explicitly name alternatives or differentiate from get_object or resolve_uid.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., list_devices, search_devices). The description does not mention contexts where this is preferred, nor any exclusions.

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