get_therapy_settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the general purpose and the effect of the changes_only parameter, but does not disclose output format, default behavior, date range handling, or any other operational traits.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every phrase contributes value.

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 four optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse to set complete expectations about return values, pagination, or default date ranges. The bare-bones nature leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains changes_only well, but profile, start_date, and end_date are left to be inferred from their names, which is reasonable but not fully compensating 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 the tool retrieves machine settings over time and explicitly lists the setting types (pressure limits, EPR, mode, ramp, humidity). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives as in the get_calls example.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_daily_summaries or get_device_info. It only offers a parameter hint about changes_only, which is not equivalent to usage guidance.

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