Get device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the trailing "Read-only" merely repeats that. The real added value is the enumeration of returned state – online/offline, exit location, tunnel confirmation, live speed, rotation schedule, clock/timezone match, last report time – which substitutes for the absent output schema. Error behavior (unknown device name) is not covered.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short usage sentence; the field list is front-loaded and every item is informative. The colon-delimited enumeration is long but earns its length by describing return values the agent cannot otherwise see.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is that it says nothing about failure modes, such as what happens when the device token or ID does not resolve.

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 single parameter is fully documented there (name, partial name, device ID, case-insensitivity, source from list_devices). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 for a schema-rich tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get one device's current state") and enumerates exactly what state is returned. The singular "one device" contrasts implicitly with list_devices, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"Use it to check a device before or after an action" gives a clear usage context that ties naturally to siblings like move_device, rotate_device, and reconnect_device. It stops short of naming alternatives or saying when not to use it (e.g., versus list_devices for bulk state), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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