wem_get_parameter_meta

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully enumerates the returned metadata fields and implies a read-only discovery operation, but never explicitly states read-only/non-destructive semantics, permission requirements, or pagination/response shape for large modules.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the workflow guidance. No filler, no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does the necessary work by listing the returned metadata fields and the intended discovery workflow. Minor gaps remain around read-only guarantees and response size, but an agent has enough to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already documents its provenance (deviceId from wem_get_devices, moduleType/moduleIndex from the device's Modules array). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get metadata for all parameters of a module') and enumerates exactly what the metadata contains (IDs, names, writable flag, data types, min/max, enum options). It implicitly distinguishes itself from value-reading siblings via 'before reading values', though it never names wem_get_parameters or wem_read_parameters directly.

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?

Gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to discover available parameters before reading values', which establishes the discovery-before-read workflow. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or explain when to prefer wem_get_parameters or wem_get_writable_parameters, which matters given seven siblings.

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