wem_get_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description does real work by disclosing that this is a composite operation bundling a refresh, not a pure cached read — that is meaningful behavioral context an agent won't get from the schema. It stops short of saying whether the refresh causes a round-trip to the device, what happens on communication failure, or any permission/latency implications.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the operational nuance, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return fields (names, values, units, writable flags). It is nearly complete; it could still say what the values look like for suppressed/invalid params or how errors surface, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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%: all three params are documented with provenance pointers back to wem_get_devices and the device's Modules array. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 all parameters of a module with current values') and the composite nature of the call, which implicitly separates it from the granular siblings wem_get_parameter_meta and wem_read_parameters. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is left partly to inference.

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?

'Combines metadata + refresh + read into one call' implies this is the one-shot alternative to the granular tools, so the when-to-use is implied. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to call it (e.g., when only metadata is needed, prefer wem_get_parameter_meta) and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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