Get device

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

Beyond readOnlyHint true, the description discloses that the state is current and 'live', that tunnel confirmation is from the exit server, and that the report includes a last-reported timestamp, which warns of potential staleness. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., unknown device), but the annotations already cover the safety profile, so the added field-level context earns a 4.

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?

A compact two-sentence description, front-loaded with the operation and scope. Every clause adds value: the field list, the use context, and the read-only note. No redundancy (though 'Read-only' echoes the annotation, it's one word and harmless).

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides a full inventory of returned information. The combination of annotations, schema, and field list leaves no critical gap for an agent deciding to call it. The only missing piece is detailed error semantics, which is low-value here.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema's device parameter description is thorough: name, unique part of name, or dev_ ID, case-insensitive, and where to get values (list_devices). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Get one device's current state' — a specific verb ('Get') plus a clear resource and scope ('one device'). It enumerates the exact state fields (online/offline, exit location, tunnel confirmation, speed, rotation schedule, last reported), which clearly differentiates this from siblings like list_devices or get_account. The 'Read-only' tag reinforces its role.

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 says 'Use it to check a device before or after an action,' giving a concrete when-to-invoke context. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, but the singular-device framing and read-only note imply it's for inspection rather than enumeration or modification.

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