get_ac

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read operation ('Get') but does not describe the response format, error handling, or side effects. For a simple getter, this is some but not extensive transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the parameter. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately concise.

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 low complexity with a single parameter and no output schema. The description tells what the tool does and the required input, but does not explain what 'state' includes. Given the simplicity, the description is mostly complete, with only a minor gap in return details.

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 only defines an 'id' string with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that the id parameter is a 'device ID', providing crucial semantic meaning beyond the schema. This effectively compensates for the lack of schema 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a single AC's state', with the qualifier 'by device ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_acs and set_ac, making the purpose unambiguous.

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: use this tool when you need a single AC's state by device ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intent is evident given the sibling list_acs and set_ac tools, so the usage context is clear.

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