get_device_parameters

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

While no annotations are present, the description discloses important behavior by specifying the returned fields (index, name, current value, min, max, quantized items) and clearly implies a read-only listing operation. It could be slightly more explicit about side-effect absence, but the 'List' wording sufficiently conveys read-only intent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return-value summary, usage guidance, and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place without excessive fluff.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still gives a complete picture: what the tool does, what it returns, when to use it, and how to interpret parameters. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: track_index is 'Track containing the device (ignored for master)', device_index is 'Position ... in the track's device chain (0 = first)', and track_kind lists allowed values 'regular' (default), 'return', or 'master'. This adds far more meaning than the raw schema.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'List every tunable parameter on a device.' It clearly defines scope (all tunable parameters) and distinguishes from the sibling set_device_parameter by explicitly tying it to reading parameters before modification.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use this BEFORE set_device_parameter so you know which index to address and what range is valid.' This gives concrete guidance relative to an alternative tool.

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