get_state

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. 'Return' implies a read-only query, and the enumerated states add some output context, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permission requirements, or what happens when the serial parameter is omitted.

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 one front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the action and the possible result states.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail. However, for a simple device-query tool, the description omits important context: how to target a device when 'serial' is omitted, whether it falls back to a default device, and when to use this tool instead of related device-listing or waiting tools.

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% for the single optional 'serial' parameter. The description refers vaguely to 'a device' but never names or explains the serial argument, its optionality, or the default-null behavior. It adds little meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the connection state of a device.' It enumerates the possible return states (device / offline / unauthorized), so the agent can infer scope. It does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings like get_devices or wait_for_device.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as get_devices, wait_for_device, or connect/disconnect, nor does it state when this tool should be preferred. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'connection state of a device.'

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