get_switches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contents (all switch names) and the index-to-ID mapping, but doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or return format. The verb 'get' implies safety, but the description alone is somewhat minimal.

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 sentence that is direct and free of redundant wording. It front-loads the action and resource, and includes only the essential clarifying detail about indexing.

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 simple zero-parameter getter, the description adequately covers the core behavior: it returns all switch names with the mapping from index to switch ID. It doesn't specify the return container (e.g., object vs array), but the phrasing implies a mapping, which is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter details to add. According to the rubric, 0 params yields a baseline of 4. The description correctly omits parameter info.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('all game switch names'). The parenthetical 'index = switch ID' adds crucial semantic detail that distinguishes this from similar list tools like get_variables.

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 usage is implied: to retrieve all switch names, use this tool. There is no explicit mention of alternatives or when not to use, but the sibling set_switch_name implies this is for reading names. However, no exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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