Get one Homey device

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add context. It explains parameter flexibility (device id or name), the logId linkage to insights, and the unit/range nuance for capabilities. This adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though it could mention that it returns a single device object (implied).

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 sentences, each packed with relevant information—return contents, linkage to other tools, and practical warning about fractional values. No filler words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and tightly structured.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description provides a thorough preview of the response (capabilities, values, range, energy, logs) and how it connects to related tools. It covers parameter usage and a unique data nuance, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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% with both parameters described. The description adds that the two parameters are interchangeable ('Send either one'), which clarifies their relationship beyond the schema. It also reiterates the accepted forms. This adds marginal value but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 action: fetching full detail for a single device, listing exactly what is returned (capabilities, values, range, energy block, Insights logs). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like homey_devices_search (search) and homey_device_set_capability (set).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: before calling homey_device_set_capability to read min/max, and as the route to device history via homey_insights_query. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear from the alternative tool names. The guidance is actionable and specific.

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