get_return_device_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'Get parameters' without disclosing side effects, return value structure, or error handling. For a getter, read-only behavior is implied but not stated; no additional behavioral traits are revealed beyond the name.

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: one sentence for purpose, one for example, and a compact parameter list. Every element is functional and front-loaded, with no redundant phrasing.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return value format unstated. This is adequate for a simple getter but lacks the completeness seen in more richly described tools.

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 description explains both parameters beyond the schema, defining return_index (0=A, 1=B...) and device_index. This adds meaning to the bare integer types, though the parameters are simple and the explanations are concise. It covers all parameters, compensating for the schema's lack of description.

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 parameters of a device on a return track' with a concrete example. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_parameters, get_master_device_parameters, and get_chain_device_parameters, targeting exact scope.

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 establishes clear context: use this tool for devices on return tracks. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but given the naming convention and parameter details, the intended usage is obvious. It lacks exclusions or explicit guidance on when to use other getter tools.

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