get_device_controls

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the basic action ('return controls') without revealing whether the operation is read-only, what happens if the device is not found, error conditions, or the structure of the returned data. No additional behavioral traits are disclosed beyond the literal action.

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 with zero fluff. Every word contributes to the purpose. It is optimally concise and easy to parse.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks important context such as what 'controls' entails, the return format, potential failure modes, or when to prefer this over get_device_state. It is sufficient for a trivial tool but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it confidently without additional assumptions.

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 provides no description for the deviceId parameter (0% coverage). The description adds some semantic context by specifying the device must be 'discovered', implying the deviceId refers to a device from discovery. However, it does not explain format, required validation, or relationship to other parameters. This is adequate but minimal, giving a baseline score of 3.

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 'Return available controls for a discovered device' uses a specific verb ('return') and resource ('controls for a discovered device'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like control_device (which sends commands) and get_device_state (which reports state). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., device must be discovered), exclusions (e.g., use control_device to change state), or any context for selection. This is a significant gap given there are many sibling tools with overlapping domains.

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