describe_device_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains that it reports on device-specific classes and that the output includes members not in parameter lists. It could additionally mention that it may return a large/structured object, but the purpose is well-disclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes only necessary context and parameter details.

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 the tool's output schema exists, the description's role in documenting parameters is secondary; it covers the core behavior and parameter semantics well within the context of the schema and output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain each parameter's meaning beyond listing the names. However, it provides a brief parenthetical for each parameter (e.g., '1-based', '0 = not in a rack') which adds semantic value. This somewhat compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 what the tool does: it reports what a device object exposes in the running build of Live, distinguishing it from related tools like get_device_parameters or get_chain_info. The verb 'describe' combined with the resource 'device API' is specific.

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 explains when to use this tool (to discover members not visible in parameter lists) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, the context implies that it is complementary to get_device_parameters, which is clear enough.

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