get_washer_profile

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only consult operation but never explicitly states it has no side effects or how the response relates to later control calls. The existence of an output schema covers return values but not behavioral expectations.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the usage directive is immediately actionable. The warning about variability is essential and placed naturally.

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 single-parameter getter, the description conveys purpose and usage timing. An output schema (present) presumably defines return shapenovides the response structure. The main gap—explicit read-only behavior—is minor given the tool's nature and presence of output schema.

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?

Only one parameter (device_id) with 0% schema coverage thresholds compensation. The description implicitly ties device_id to identifying a specific washer, but does not clarify format, source, or relationship to list_devices. It adds some meaning but not enough to fully offset the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb ('get') and resource ('capability profile'), explicitly says it covers controllable properties and allowed values, and its purpose is clearly differentiated from siblings like control_washer and get_status. 'Property names/values vary by model' makes the scope concrete.

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?

Gives an explicit directive: 'Consult this before controlling', which tells the agent when to use it. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough to route an agent to this tool before a control action.

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