nina_switch_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the returned information (connection and state/value) but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be connected) or the read-only nature of the operation. Adequate for a simple info tool.

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 sentence that conveys all necessary information without any wasted words. Front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by specifics.

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 0 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool returns. Could optionally mention that it assumes a device is already connected or what happens if no switches are configured, but for its simplicity it is adequate.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100% trivially). Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and there is no additional parameter information to add. The description correctly indicates no inputs are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('switch device status'), specifies it returns connection and state/value, and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like nina_switch_set which modifies switches.

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?

While the purpose is clear, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., nina_switch_set) or provide any exclusion criteria. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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