lib_get_device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the response includes symbol, footprint, and 'all properties', but says nothing about error behavior when the UUID is not found or cross-instance/library resolution semantics.

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, well-shaped sentence with the key lookup identifier front-loaded and the return contents trailing. No filler or redundancy, though the trailing clause is a light restatement of expected output rather than new guidance.

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 single-entity getter with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is largely sufficient. In the absence of an output schema it helpfully names the returned fields (symbol, footprint, properties), which covers most of what an agent needs before calling.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all three parameters (deviceUuid, instance_id, libraryUuid) are already documented in the schema, including multi-instance handling. The description only restates the UUID lookup and adds no format, scoping, or resolution meaning beyond it, 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (device) with the lookup key (UUID) and the returned content (symbol, footprint, properties). It is clearly distinguishable from lib_search_device and lib_get_device_by_lcsc, though the description does not name those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'by its UUID' signals you need a device UUID in hand. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or routing to the sibling search/lookup tools is given, so the agent must infer this is the follow-up to a search.

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