list_device_params

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Side effects: none' declares the safety profile, and the edge-case note discloses that missing targets return STALE_REFERENCE with a recovery hint. It also hints at the return ('parameter path-ids'), though it doesn't cover ordering or pagination.

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?

Four short labeled lines, front-loaded with the core action and with example and edge cases clearly separated. No filler, though the labeled-line format is slightly more mechanical than necessary.

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 read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description supplies side effects, an invocation example, and error behavior. What remains thin is the exact shape of the returned parameter path-ids, but overall it is sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 schema only says track_id is a string. The description partially compensates by revealing that the value is a 'track path-id' and giving a concrete example ('track:0'), which clarifies format, but it stops short of documenting valid path syntax or resolution failure modes for the parameter itself.

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 pair (resolve, list) and resource (device parameters), and 'list all device parameters' positions it against get_parameter_value (single value) and get_device_list. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 embedded example ('list_device_params("track:0")') implies when and how to call it, which is more than nothing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_parameter_value, get_device_chains, or get_device_list, and no when-not guidance.

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