get_device_status

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It describes the return structure (dict with status, count, devices, message) and gives example usage. It implies a read-only operation but doesn't explicitly state side effects or auth needs.

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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points and docstring-style details. It is slightly lengthy but front-loaded with purpose. Could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 output schema exists, description explains return values effectively. For a tool with two optional parameters, it covers usage, defaults, and return format comprehensively.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains both parameters: adom (default from env var or 'root') and device (optional, returns all if not given). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 retrieves device status including connection and config sync status. It lists specific status fields and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_realtime_status.

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 explains how to get status for all devices or a specific device via the 'device' parameter, and mentions the 'adom' default. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_device or get_device_realtime_status.

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