get_return_device_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it gets parameters and doesn't mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or safety. The verb 'get' implies read-only, but for full transparency it should explicitly say that the operation doesn't modify any state or mention potential failure cases.

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 extremely concise: one clear purpose sentence followed by a terse parameter list. No fluff or redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, and the layout is front-loaded with the main 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers purpose and parameters clearly. The only shortfall is the lack of behavioral details (like error conditions), but for a simple getter with good parameter info, it's nearly complete.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying that both parameters are zero-based indices, and clarifies that return_index refers to the return track and device_index to the device within that track's chain. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 on a return track' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_device_parameters and get_master_device_parameters by explicitly targeting return tracks.

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 context is clear: this tool is for devices on return tracks, and the parameters specify which return track and device. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the name and wording make the usage straightforward enough. No exclusions are stated, but the intended use is evident.

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