get_all_temperatures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior by describing the return data (measured values, setpoints, control states, climate modes) and scope (all devices), but does not mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness. It adds useful context but lacks operational details.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by details on return data. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second elaborates on the comprehensive output. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (retrieving data for all devices), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete—it explains what data is returned and for which devices. However, it could improve by mentioning output format or pagination, but the absence of an output schema is partially compensated by the descriptive return details.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose and output. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 ('current temperatures and setpoints for all thermostats and zones'), specifying it returns comprehensive data for every temperature-capable device. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_temperature' (likely single device) and 'get_devices' (broader device info).

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 retrieving temperature data across all devices, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_temperature' (single device) or 'get_devices' (general device list). It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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