get_control_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Read the current values'. It omits critical behavioral details: whether the call is blocking, what happens on device disconnection, rate limits, or side effects. 'Read' implies no mutation, but explicit safety confirmation is absent.

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 short and front-loaded, using a single-line purpose followed by parameter explanation. However, the 'Args:' formatting adds minor redundancy; a more streamlined format could improve readability without losing clarity.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks context on error handling, device state assumptions, and whether multiple reads are cached. For a simple read tool, it is adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema provides 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaningful purpose for the 'ids' parameter: 'Optional list of control ids to filter to. Omit for all controls.' This clarifies behavior beyond the schema's type 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 the tool reads current values of controls on the paired device, using precise verb 'Read' and specific resource 'controls'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_control_value' (write) and 'list_controls' (catalog) by its focus on current values.

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 clear usage context: filter by optional IDs or omit for all controls. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, the purpose is well-defined and the usage is straightforward given the sibling set.

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