get_device_eventsources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that the result is device-level associations, which is minor extra context. No further behavioral detail (pagination, ordering, auth) is provided, but annotations lower the bar.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The second sentence slightly restates the first, but it is still tight and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 the simple read-only nature, strong annotations, and fully covered schema, the description is adequate for an agent to invoke this tool correctly. No output schema exists, but a list of event source associations can be assumed.

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%; device_id and limit are documented. The description does not add beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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?

The description says 'Get EventSources applied to a device' with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it returns device-level associations, distinguishing it from a general get_eventsources. It is clear, though the parenthetical '(resource)' adds little.

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 phrasing implies this is for a specific device rather than a global list, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_eventsources or name alternatives. Usage is inferred rather than spelled out.

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