get_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral context: the device must be adopted, and device_id accepts multiple MAC formats (AA:BB:CC:DD:EE:FF, AABBCCDDEEFF, aa-bb-cc-dd-ee-ff), implying input normalization. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when the device is not adopted or not found.

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 purpose statement is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact parameter documentation. Every line earns its place, and the format examples are tightly packed without redundancy or fluff.

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 3-string-parameter get tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential calling information: purpose, parameter identity, and accepted input formats. Minor gaps remain—no error-case behavior and no guidance on how host/site relate to the device's actual location—but nothing blocks a correct invocation.

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%, yet the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter: host (console name, ID, or composite ID with MAC:numericId format), site (name or ID), and device_id (UUID or MAC with three explicit accepted formats). This is rich, format-level guidance that an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 details for a single adopted device.' The phrase 'single adopted device' distinguishes it from listing tools (list_devices, list_site_devices) and from pending-device operations (approve_pending_device, reject_pending_device). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_device_statistics or search_device_fleet, so it falls just short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar accessors in the sibling list (get_site_inventory, list_devices, list_site_devices, get_device_statistics). No alternatives are named and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated; usage is only weakly implied by the phrase 'Get details for a single...'.

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