get_selected_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It only states the action and scope but does not disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., behavior when no device is selected), or whether it is a safe read operation. This adds little beyond the tool name itself.

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 a single, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 is simple (no parameters, single action), and an output schema exists to describe the return value. The description communicates the core functionality sufficiently. However, it does not mention potential edge cases or prerequisites (e.g., selected track), which prevents a perfect score.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is trivially fully covered. The description does not need to explain parameters, and there is nothing additional to convey about parameter semantics. Per the calibration, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4.

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 the tool's function: 'Get the currently selected device on the selected track.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('selected device'), and specifies the scope ('on the selected track'), which distinguishes it from related siblings like get_selected_track or get_selected_parameter.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name. No alternative tools are mentioned, and there is no indication of prerequisites or conditions (e.g., a track must be selected).

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