get_switches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Get' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and the scope 'all game switch names' is clear. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, return format, or caveats, which would be relevant absent an output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous content. It conveys the exact action and target without any filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does. It doesn't detail the return structure, but for a simple listing of names, the absence is minor. Given the sibling context (e.g., set_switch_name), the function is easily understood.

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 input schema is empty, so there are zero parameters. Schema description coverage is effectively 100% (vacuously). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter information because none exists; nothing more is needed.

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 'Get all game switch names' uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('game switch names'), and indicates the full scope ('all'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like set_switch_name (which writes a name) and get_variables (which gets a different resource).

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 alternatives. It does not mention related tools like set_switch_name, nor any context where this tool is preferred. The description is purely declarative and provides no usage or exclusion criteria.

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