wem_read_parameters

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

With no annotations, the description still discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: it refreshes data from the device before reading, implying device I/O and added latency versus a cached read. It does not cover failure behavior, permissions, or whether the refresh has side effects on the device.

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 and then the refresh behavior, with no filler. There is mild redundancy in 'Read current values ... then reads' but it costs little.

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?

Four required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description carries the burden of explaining results, yet it says nothing about what is returned (values keyed by parameter ID? partial failures for invalid IDs?). The refresh disclosure helps, but the return-shape gap leaves it only minimally adequate.

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 every property already documents its source tool (wem_get_devices, wem_get_parameter_meta), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about the parameters themselves, e.g. whether parameterIds must come from the same module or how moduleType interacts with parameterIds.

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 ('Read current values for specific parameters') with a scoping qualifier ('specific' vs all) that implicitly separates it from wem_get_parameters. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the trailing 'instead of all' clause.

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?

'Use when you only need specific parameter values instead of all' gives a clear selection condition against the bulk-read alternative. It stops short of naming wem_get_parameters or stating exclusions such as when a full snapshot is preferable.

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