Device detail

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behaviors beyond that: secrets (Wi-Fi keys, passwords, communities) are masked, and a full document can be hundreds of KB, which drives the projection recommendation.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler: identifier form first, projection guidance second, masking caveat last. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence carries a distinct, actionable fact.

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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, the description covers identification, payload sizing, and data masking. It doesn't describe the shape of the returned document, but with no output schema and a well-known resource type that is a minor gap rather than a blocker.

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%, so baseline would be 3; the description adds an example _id format and reinforces the projection pattern as comma-separated parameter paths with a concrete instance, which helps an agent construct the call rather than just parse the types.

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 and resource ('Read one device') and is explicit that it is by exact `_id`, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list tool acs_devices. The endpoint reference (GET /devices?query=...) further pins down semantics.

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?

Gives concrete guidance on when to pass `projection` ('unless you really need the full parameter tree') and which identifier form to use (exact _id as shown by acs_devices). It doesn't explicitly say to use acs_devices for listing or searching, but the routing implication is clear enough.

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