gadgets_get_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely valuable and non-obvious trait — that the value is *reported* state and 'physical effect is not verified' — warning the agent not to treat it as confirmed actuation. However, it omits permissions, error behavior, and how 'freshness' is expressed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core read semantic comes first and the caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately signals the return shape (state plus freshness) and the key reliability caveat. It could say more about error conditions or required device state, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single device_id parameter, but the parameter is self-describing by name and type. The description adds no format, scope, or ID-source guidance beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Read reported state and freshness,' which is concrete about what is retrieved from a device. It implicitly separates itself from siblings like gadgets_read_events or gadgets_diagnostics by naming the state/freshness pair, but never explicitly names an alternative tool.

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 statement of when to use this versus gadgets_command_status, gadgets_read_events, or gadgets_diagnostics. The only usage signal is the implied 'read state,' leaving the agent to guess which of several read-style siblings to pick.

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