Idm Get Parameters

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: 'Read' does correctly convey a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the flattening note describes the output shape. It does not disclose the caching/staleness nuance (fresh=false may return a stored sample rather than a live value), error behavior, or authorization needs — though the schema's `fresh` description partly covers the caching point.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the read action and the flattened return shape are stated in the first half. Every word earns its place.

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 re-explained, and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and six-plus closely named siblings, the description is thin on disambiguation, staleness semantics, and failure modes — gaps that matter for a device-query tool.

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%, so baseline is 3; the `names` matching semantics, `prefix` filtering, and `fresh` round-trip cost are all documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameter semantics of its own beyond the output-path naming.

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 of a device's parameters') and even sketches the return shape ('flattened to path -> {value, unit}'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like idm_list_parameters, idm_get_value, or idm_get_structure, which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over idm_list_parameters or idm_get_value, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage-relevant hint (device round-trip cost) is buried in the schema, not the description.

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