get_chain_device_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that plain get_device_parameters returns only the rack's macros (usually unassigned), providing context on the tool's behavioral advantage. However, it does not describe return format or error handling, which slightly limits 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 well-structured: a clear purpose statement, an illustrative example, a contrast with a sibling tool, and a parameter list. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains the workflow (get_rack_chains first) and all parameters. Minor gap: it doesn't specify the return value structure, but for a getter this is partially implied by the name and parameter descriptions.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description includes a dedicated Parameters section that explains each of the four indices (track, device, chain, chain_device) with meaningful context. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and adds value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool gets parameters of a nested device inside a rack chain, using a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_device_parameters by explaining the limitation of the plain version, leaving no ambiguity about its unique purpose.

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 explicit guidance: use get_rack_chains first to find the chain index, then this tool. It also contrasts with get_device_parameters, explaining why the alternative is insufficient for nested devices. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions.

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