get_device_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns device information as a formatted string, which is helpful, but fails to detail other critical behaviors such as whether it requires permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences that state the purpose and return value without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the main action, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (implied by 'Returns' in the description), the description does not need to explain return values in detail. However, as a tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it lacks completeness in distinguishing itself and providing behavioral context, making it only adequate for basic understanding.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline score is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 the tool 'Get detailed information about the device', which clearly indicates its purpose as a retrieval operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_device_id, get_device_name, or get_screen_info, making it vague about what specific information it provides compared to alternatives.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other device-related tools in the sibling list. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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