read_point

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Read', implying idempotent and read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects or disclose other traits like response format or behavior for invalid parameters. It is minimally adequate.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could include more detail on parameter semantics without losing conciseness. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return format, error handling, or behavior for unknown points. The tool is simple, but the description leaves many usage questions unanswered.

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%, yet the description adds no meaning beyond parameter names. It does not explain what equipment_id or point_name represent, or how to find valid values. For two required parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 BACnet point values on equipment, with specific examples (supply-air temperature, zone setpoint). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_setpoint (write) and get_equipment (equipment details), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for live BAS state reads ('standard read path for live BAS state'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like list_trends for historical data or list_alarms for alarms. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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