get_temperature_offset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns the current offset value and its valid range, which is useful context beyond basic purpose. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, leaving gaps for a mutation-free query tool.

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 and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second explains the return value. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded. It could be slightly improved by integrating usage hints, but it's efficient as is.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and return values adequately, but lacks usage guidelines and full behavioral context. For a simple query tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive, aligning with a minimum viable score.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'device_id' clearly documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the temperature offset (calibration) for a thermostat device.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('temperature offset'), and clarifies that this is for calibration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_temperature' or 'get_all_temperatures,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the offset is for calibration if the sensor reads incorrectly, but doesn't specify prerequisites, when to avoid it, or compare it to related tools like 'set_temperature_offset' or 'get_temperature.' This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.

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