get_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden to disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the basic read operation and does not mention any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or potential errors. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 concise with a single sentence followed by an Args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is written only in Chinese, which may limit accessibility for non-Chinese-speaking agents, but within its context it is efficient.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the basic operation but omits details on return format, error handling, or any special behaviors. For a simple read tool, it is partially complete but could be more informative.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'did' is identified as device ID, and 'prop_name' is given with examples (power, brightness, temperature). This provides essential meaning beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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 that the tool reads device property values, with concrete examples like light brightness, air conditioner temperature, and switch status. It effectively identifies the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_device'. However, the sibling 'set_property' provides contrast.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the sibling list.

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