Get Switch 2 Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'Refresh' suggests a non-idempotent action (e.g., cache invalidation or data fetch), but no details are given about side effects, safety, or prerequisites like device connection status.

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 of 14 words, front-loading the key action 'Refresh and return' and listing output fields efficiently. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns (list of status fields), which partially compensates for lacking an output schema. However, it omits important context such as error handling, connection requirements, the effect of the 'waitMs' parameter, and rate limits.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'waitMs' parameter at all. The parameter's purpose (e.g., wait time before refresh? timeout?) is completely unexplained, leaving the agent with no semantic understanding.

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 tool refreshes and returns device status, listing specific fields (battery, temperature, light mode, preset, session state). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_device_info' and 'set_*' tools.

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. With 21 sibling tools, explicit usage context would help the agent choose correctly. The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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