get_setpoints

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get current setpoint values' with no mention of return format, whether this is a read-only operation (though implied by 'get'), rate limits, or any side effects. For a read tool, this is minimally OK but lacks any behavioral detail beyond the obvious.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently specified. There is no elaboration that would help an agent decide to use it. The brevity is good, but the content is minimal to the point of being merely functional.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and very brief description, the tool is somewhat under-documented. The agent cannot know what units setpoints are in, whether multiple setpoints are returned at once, or how to interpret the results. Sibling tools like get_status and read_sensor suggest a richer context that this description doesn't clarify.

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 tool has 0 parameters and no output schema, so there is nothing for the description to document regarding parameters. With 0 parameters, the baseline of 4 applies since there are no parameter semantics to convey. The description correctly implies no parameters are needed to retrieve all setpoints.

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 'Get current setpoint values,' which identifies a verb+resource but is very generic. Given siblings like get_status, get_alarms, and get_all, the description doesn't clearly distinguish what distinguishes setpoints from other values. It's not a tautology, but it's a minimal statement of purpose without scope or differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_status or read_sensor. No context about when setpoints would be relevant versus when status or sensor readings would be the right choice. The description implies it's for reading setpoint values but provides no usage context or exclusions.

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