Get device

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the live state fields returned (online status, exit location, tunnel confirmation, speed, rotation, clock match, last report). The trailing 'Read-only' repeats the annotation, and no permissions or rate limits are mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and the return-field enumeration is dense but necessary because there is no output schema. The only minor waste is the final 'Read-only', which duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 a single-device read tool with a fully described parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what state is returned, when to use it, and that it is read-only.

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 device parameter is fully documented in the schema with accepted formats and how to obtain names/IDs. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get one device's current state', then enumerates the exact state fields returned. 'One device' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling list_devices, and an agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context: 'Use it to check a device before or after an action.' However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (such as list_devices for listing all devices) or state when not to use this tool.

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