get_bonded_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'get' strongly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, error behavior (e.g., what happens if the UUID is not found), or any permissions needed. This is adequate for a straightforward get but lacks additional behavioral detail.

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 description is a single, concise sentence (9 words) that is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 one-parameter get tool, the description is functionally complete. It does not have an output schema, but the term 'details' gives enough context. It could have been slightly more detailed about the return value shape, but it is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's role among the sibling tools.

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?

The schema already provides complete documentation for the single parameter ('device_id' with description 'UUID of the device'), so the description adds no new parameter-level information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the parameter is fully covered by 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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a specific bonded device') with a precise filter ('by UUID'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_bonded_devices' which lists all devices, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly communicates when to use this tool (when you have a UUID for a specific bonded device) by using the word 'specific' and 'by UUID'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'get_bonded_devices' for listing all devices, but the context is clear enough for a simple get operation.

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