query_crestron_device

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully. It explains the return structure and time fields (epoch milliseconds, remaining_ms/in_ms). However, it omits details like side effects (none, as a read), authentication needs, or error conditions. Still, it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose and providing details in a single paragraph. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), it is not verbose and every sentence adds value.

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, the description adequately explains return values and introduces helpful fields like remaining_ms/in_ms. It covers the main states and time concepts, but lacks details on error cases or format confirmations (e.g., if device not found).

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 schema covers 100% of parameters with a description for device_id. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('live state of a device'), then enumerates specific state components (current value, idle/ramping/pulsing with time fields, pending scheduled action). This distinctively separates it from sibling tools like ramp_crestron_device or pulse_crestron_device.

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 usage for querying device state and explains how to interpret time fields, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives or provide exclusions. The note 'One read tells you idle vs in-flight vs scheduled' gives context, but lacks direct comparisons.

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