describe_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses return behavior: 'Returns available analog input, analog output, digital input, and digital output channels, plus voltage ranges and max sample rates.' This explains what the tool produces. It also implies a non-mutating, read-only nature through the verb 'describe,' though it does not explicitly address error cases or prerequisites.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose; the second adds return details and a practical usage tip. It is front-loaded and 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no annotations) and has an output schema, so the description need not restate output structure. It provides the essential context for selecting and invoking the tool—what it does and when to use it. The main gap is the under-specified 'device' parameter, but given the minimal complexity, the overall context is adequate.

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%—the schema only lists 'device' as a required string with no description. The tool description does not compensate. It only mentions 'one device' in passing, which hints that the parameter identifies the device but offers no format guidance, source of valid values, or relationship to list_devices. The agent is left guessing how to populate the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Describe one device's full channel inventory.' This is a specific verb (describe) with a well-defined resource (device channel inventory). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (read, write, monitor) by focusing on inventory discovery rather than data transfer.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this to pick valid channel names before reading or writing.' This tells the agent when to invoke it relative to other operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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