get_parameter_value

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'Side effects: none', describes the return of bounds, and explains an edge case where missing parameters return INVALID_PARAMS. It doesn't discuss authentication or performance, but for a read operation the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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 front-loaded with purpose and side effects, followed by concise examples and edge cases. It is slightly long due to the examples, but each section earns its place by disambiguating complex nested parameters.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, parameter usage, and critical edge cases. It is nearly complete, though it could mention the return format or whether bounds are always returned.

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 compensate. It provides concrete examples showing how track_index, device_index, chain_index, chain_device_index, and parameter_name are used, including the behavioral nuance that chain_index alone addresses a chain mixer with limited parameters. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Read a named device parameter and its bounds'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_parameter_value and other get_* tools. The purpose is unambiguous and scoped to exactly one operation.

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 examples show how to call the tool for top-level and nested parameters, which implies when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_device_params or get_selected_context. The context is clear enough to infer, but alternatives are not named.

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