check_device_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only, does not touch ETS/bus, reads directly from the .knxproj part, and cannot handle password-protected projects. It also explains the grouping logic and output categories. It does not disclose potential performance characteristics or failure modes beyond the password limitation, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 dense but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then explains the data source, grouping logic, output categories, and constraints. Every sentence adds value, though the final sentence about password protection could be integrated more tightly. It is longer than the ideal but earns its length by covering multiple behavioral aspects.

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 tool's complexity (grouping, outlier detection, two output categories) and the absence of annotations, the description is quite complete. It explains the input requirements, the read-only nature, the output structure, and a key limitation. It does not explicitly document the 'min_group' parameter or edge cases like what happens when no outliers are found, but the output schema likely covers return values. Overall, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'path' parameter implicitly by requiring a real .knxproj path and noting password-protected projects cannot be read. It does not explicitly explain 'password' or 'min_group' semantics, but the description's mention of 'strong majority' and 'balanced 2+ variants' hints at grouping thresholds. The output schema likely clarifies the return structure, and the description adds meaningful context about what the tool does with the path.

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 ('Find'), a precise resource (device parameter settings in a .knxproj project), and a clear outcome (identifying the odd device among identical siblings). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on parameter settings rather than naming, topology, or security, and it names the two output categories (clear_outliers, split_configs).

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: to find devices whose ETS parameter settings differ from identical siblings. It also gives exclusions: a password-protected/encrypted project cannot be read, and it is read-only with no ETS/bus involvement. This is strong guidance for an agent deciding between this and sibling tools like check_naming or check_topology.

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