get_turnout

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: it is a read-only operation with no side effects. It also details the nuance of the INCONSISTENT state when has_feedback_sensor is false, preventing misinterpretation.

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, starting with the core purpose, then detailing the argument, side effects, and edge-case behavior. Each sentence serves a clear purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return fields (has_feedback_sensor) and how to interpret the state. It addresses common confusion about the INCONSISTENT state, making the tool's behavior fully self-contained.

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 sole parameter 'name' is thoroughly described with examples (JMRI system name and user-friendly label), clarifications on case-insensitivity, and allowance for unambiguous fragments. This adds significant value beyond the schema's minimal definition.

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 it retrieves the current state of one turnout, using specific verbs ('Get') and resource ('turnout'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_turnout' and 'list_turnouts' by focusing on a single read operation.

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 mentions 'No side effects — this only reads state, it never changes the turnout', providing clear context for safe read-only usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'set_turnout' for mutations or 'list_turnouts' for listing all turnouts.

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