get_fl_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new context: the payload includes normalized values and display units, and the edit handles are 'short-lived' — a real constraint an agent must act on. It also signals pagination via next_start. It stops short of saying what the handles are for or what happens when they expire.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the return-payload summary is front-loaded. 'Follow next_start' is terse to the point of ambiguity, 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns and does list the four payload elements, plus paging. However, it never explains how kind/slot/index combine to select a target, nor what an edit handle is used for downstream — meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter tool with required addressing fields.

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 80% — slot, index, limit and start are all documented in-schema, and kind is a self-explanatory two-value enum. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning; 'Follow next_start' refers to a pagination token that is not even a request parameter, 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?

A specific verb ('Read') plus the resource ('parameters') and an enumeration of what comes back: names, normalized values, display units, edit handles. It is clearly the read counterpart to set_fl_parameter, though it never names that sibling or otherwise differentiates itself explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this instead of set_fl_parameter or the list_* tools, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing a track/slot selected first). 'Follow next_start' hints at pagination handling but is the only usage-shaped guidance offered.

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