get_levels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It indicates a retrieval operation and what data is returned, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect free, nor does it mention any permissions or limitations. This is a moderate gap for a getter with no annotation coverage.

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, compact phrase with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the key information about what levels contain and which one is active, earning its place fully.

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 zero-parameter getter with an output schema present, the description is largely complete: it identifies the core return fields and the active-level state. It could be strengthened with usage context or an explicit read-only statement, but the low complexity means nothing critical is missing for invoking it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter syntax, which is correct since there are none to document; it appropriately focuses on the result content.

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 names the resource ('levels') and the specific fields returned ('name, elevation, height'), plus the active level. It is specific and easy to understand, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not directly contrast with sibling tools like create_level or set_active_level.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_schedule, get_wall_types, or set_active_level. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and output description, not stated explicitly.

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