get_params

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing the shape of the result (total, metadata_url, note, documented, undocumented) and the important caveat that a value outside the documented range or list is not necessarily wrong, plus offline/bundled firmware definitions.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the name_glob format, then the output caveats. It is dense but each sentence carries information; the explanation of return fields is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, though the interpretation caveats earn their 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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, this covers what the agent needs: purpose, glob semantics, fallback path, and interpretation caveats. The only real hole is the undocumented `path` parameter.

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%, so the description must carry the load. It explains name_glob well (case-insensitive glob with a concrete example like 'INS_HNTCH_*'), but the required `path` parameter is never described, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Parameter values recorded in the log's PARM dump') and scopes it to the log's firmware, which distinguishes it from siblings like list_events, query_timeseries, and log_summary without needing the schema.

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?

It gives a clear conditional route to an alternative: if the snapshot looks incomplete (truncated log), ask for the exported .param file and use load_param_file. It also advises how to interpret out-of-range values. It does not cover when to prefer this over other parameter/event siblings, but the key alternative is named.

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