list_device_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns 'exact live' values, implying real-time state rather than cached or blueprint data, which is useful. It doesn't disclose pagination, ordering, or whether the tool fails on invalid device IDs, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core action and enumerates the exact data returned. Every word earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a read-only list tool with two well-documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could mention whether the output is a flat list or grouped by parameter, but the absence of an output schema means the agent must infer the return shape from the description's enumeration, which is reasonably informative.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List') and resource ('live parameter IDs, values, bounds, labels, and quantized choices'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_device_hierarchy or set_device_parameters, but the focus on exact live parameter data is distinctive enough.

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 implies usage context: it's a read-only inspection tool for device parameters, and the parameter descriptions clarify that trackId and deviceId come from list_tracks/get_set_mixer and list_devices respectively. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_device_hierarchy or inspect_producer_chain, nor does it mention exclusions.

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