get_device_display_values

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 explains the return content (raw + display values, is_enabled) but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, error handling, or potential side effects. As a 'get' tool, read-only is implied but not stated.

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 compact: a clear purpose sentence, a comparison with an example of display values, and a minimal but sufficient Args list. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

The tool has a simple structure with two integer parameters and an output schema exists. The description provides enough context for correct invocation, including the zero-based indices and the distinction from get_device_parameters. It does not describe the return format in detail, but that is partially covered by the output schema and the tool's purpose.

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 provides no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes an 'Args' section that clearly defines both parameters, including the crucial zero-based indexing. This fully compensates for the schema 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?

The description clearly states 'Get all parameters of a device with both raw value and human-readable display value,' giving a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_device_parameters by explicitly noting the addition of is_enabled and display_value.

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 names the closely related alternative get_device_parameters and clarifies the key difference, which implicitly guides when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or when-not scenarios, stopping short of a full 5.

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