get_device_logsources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the device-scoping constraint and no additional behaviors like pagination, ordering, or response shape, which is acceptable but not rich.

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 single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical '(resource)' is slightly redundant but does not hurt clarity.

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 simple read with two well-documented parameters and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gaps are lack of explicit return-shape/pagination context and no mention of the sibling get_logsources for un-scoped queries.

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 coverage is 100%: device_id is documented as 'Device ID' and limit as 'Max results' with a default of 50. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get LogSources applied to a device'), making the scope clear and distinguishing it from the sibling get_logsources, which would not be device-scoped. Even though it is terse, the meaning is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'applied to a device' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: device-scoped log source retrieval. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_logsources or get_device_datasources, nor state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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