get_device_params

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the value format, how query filtering works, and a real edge case: plug-ins exposing only 'Device On' return a hint pointing at Configure or plugin_window tools. That edge-case guidance is genuinely useful behavior an agent could not get from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and value, followed by the query filter and the plug-in caveat. No filler or repetition; the only mild inefficiency is that the caveat could be tighter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and annotations handle safety. What is missing is addressing guidance for a 5-parameter schema with zero description coverage, especially how to target a specific device via device_name or device_index.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains query (filters by parameter name). The four other parameters — track_index, track_type, device_name, device_index — get no meaning, and in particular the device_name vs device_index selection (required vs optional) is never clarified.

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 uses a specific verb ("Read") plus resource ("a device's or plug-in's parameters") and adds the distinctive value of human-readable formatting ("300 Hz", "-3.0 dB"). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling get_device_parameters, leaving an agent to guess which reader to call.

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?

Usage is implied by the readable-value framing — call this when you want to inspect current parameter settings — but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no named alternative. The closest sibling, get_device_parameters, is never mentioned, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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