vrm_get_gateway_relay_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not mention permissions, side effects, or response behavior. This is minimal 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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is very brief and could benefit from slightly more detail without losing conciseness.

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 should compensate with return value or behavior details. It does not, leaving the agent to guess what the response contains or whether additional context is needed. The tool is simple but still incomplete.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented in the schema with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond that; it merely reiterates the tool's purpose without clarifying how the parameters relate to the relay state retrieval.

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 it gets the gateway relay state for remote switching control, identifying the action and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tool vrm_get_gateway_relay_two_state, leaving ambiguity about which relay state is being retrieved.

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 phrase 'for remote switching control' implies a use case, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vrm_get_gateway_relay_two_state. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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