get_device_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that output depth varies by auth mode (legacy full detail for AP/EAP, summary rows otherwise, reduced fields on Open API), that fields are normalized plus a raw passthrough, and that MAC separators are normalized. It stops short of permission/rate-limit or error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the MAC-format detail in the first sentence, then auth-mode behavior, then return shape. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parenthetical asides and trailing 'so nothing the controller returned is lost' add mild length.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still usefully characterizes the return shape (normalized fields plus raw), and it documents the auth-dependent behavioral split, which the schema cannot convey. The unaddressed `site_id` parameter is the notable gap preventing a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It compensates excellently for `mac` (accepted separators: colon, hyphen, Cisco-dotted, bare; normalized), but `site_id` is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('get the richest available detail for one device') plus the keying mechanism (MAC address), which sharply distinguishes it from the sibling list_devices. An agent can tell what the tool returns and how it is identified without opening the schema.

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 by the contrast with list_devices (one device vs. a list) and by the noted fallback behavior, but there is no explicit 'use this when / not when' statement or named alternative. The auth-mode caveat hints at when richer data is available, which is useful but not a routing rule.

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