get_device_state

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and condition, without revealing side effects, error handling, or what happens if the adapter is unsupported. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 sentence that delivers essential information without fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a necessary condition, earning its place.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe the return value format, potential errors, or prerequisites beyond 'discovered device'. The condition about adapter support is present, but further context on behavior when unsupported would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It vaguely implies that the deviceId refers to a discovered device, but it does not explain the format, source (e.g., from discover_devices), or any constraints. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value.

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 verb 'Return' and the resource 'current state for a discovered device'. It also adds a condition ('when the discovered adapter supports it') that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_device_controls, which focus on controls rather than state.

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 condition 'when the discovered adapter supports it' provides clear context for when the tool is applicable, implying that some adapters do not support state retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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