get_outlet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a useful behavioral detail: 'freshly read from the hub' indicates the data is not cached. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe error handling or what happens if the outlet does not exist. For a simple getter, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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: two sentences plus a focused Args block. Every element earns its place—the first sentence states purpose, the second adds a key behavioral nuance, and the Args block adds necessary parameter context. No superfluous words.

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 simple one-parameter getter, the description is largely complete. It clearly defines the tool's purpose and parameter. The output schema (though not shown) likely covers return format, so the description need not explain that. The main gap is the lack of error/edge-case behavior, but given the low complexity, the description is sufficient to select and invoke correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively for the only parameter, outlet_id, by specifying that it is 'as returned by list_outlets.' This adds provenance and usage context beyond the schema's generic string type, significantly aiding correct invocation.

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 current state of a single outlet, freshly read from the hub.' This specifies a precise verb (get), resource (single outlet), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_outlets (multiple outlets) and set_outlet/toggle_outlet/power_cycle (mutations).

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 provides clear context: this tool is for retrieving the current state of one specific outlet. It implicitly indicates that list_outlets is the source for the outlet_id, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear, but exclusions are not stated, so it does not receive a 5.

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