get_device_parameters

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 discloses that devices can have 50-100+ parameters, that name_filter is case-insensitive, and that oscillators, filters, envelopes, and LFOs are exposed as named parameters. This adds significant insight beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: a concise summary, a contextual paragraph explaining why filtering matters, and a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the format enables quick scanning for both purpose and usage.

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 lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (parameter names, current values, valid ranges) and how to navigate the result space. It also references related tools, making it complete for the tool's apparent complexity.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates excellently with a dedicated 'Parameters' section that explains each parameter in plain language, including optionality, filtering semantics, and telemetry purpose. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 lists device parameters with their current values and valid ranges, using the specific verb 'List'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_device_parameter by focusing on read-only inspection, and it gives concrete examples of supported devices, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 strong usage context: it explains when to use name_filter (to narrow large parameter lists) and references get_track_info for finding device indices. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, though the read-only nature and sibling names make the distinction implicit.

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