Get switch actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds domain context about action URLs/scripts and the idx preference, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as fallback behavior when neither parameter is provided.

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?

Two short sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, the parameter preference is stated, and the sibling cross-reference is included economically.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage for both parameters, and an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The only minor gap—behavior when both idx and name are absent—is already implied by the schema defaults and openWorldHint.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both idx and name clearly. The description adds only the preference for idx, which is marginal value beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') applied to a specific resource: the On Action and Off Action URLs or scripts for a switch. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like toggle_switch, set_switch_state, and set_switch_actions.

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 gives practical guidance by preferring the idx parameter and cross-referencing set_switch_actions, which implies the get-vs-set distinction. It does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool, but the clear sibling reference provides adequate context.

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