rs_read_io_signal

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses that the call returns both state and value and that it goes through the SDK, but says nothing about failure behavior for unknown signal names, permissions, or read latency. Adequate for a low-risk single read, incomplete for a stricter standard.

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?

One compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is terse to the point of omitting any routing signal, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by stating that state and value are returned. Still missing is any hint of what 'state' vs 'value' look like or how errors surface.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter already carries an example ('di1', 'do1'). The description adds no naming conventions or scoping detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (individual IO signal) plus its payload (state and value, via SDK). The word 'individual' implicitly distinguishes it from the bulk siblings rs_read_io_signals and rws_read_io, though those alternatives are never named.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives among the many IO read siblings (rs_read_io_signals, rws_read_io). The agent must infer from the singular noun that this is the single-signal variant.

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