read_device

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes far beyond by disclosing the return record shape (index, name, value, min, max, display, quantized, enabled), that quantized switches carry an items list, that display holds Live's own formatted text, and that chains is null for non-rack devices. The 'enabled false means a macro or lock controls the parameter — change the macro instead' note is genuinely actionable and prevents a dead-end workflow.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: what it reads, then the field list, then path defaults, then rack semantics, then the enabled caveat. No filler sentences, though the parenthetical explanations make it a slightly heavy read compared with a crisper two-paragraph split.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by specifying the return fields and the null/items edge cases, so an agent needs nothing else to interpret the response. Combined with the rack-path routing rules, the definition is complete for a 2-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the load and does: device_path's default, its positional path grammar, an example, and the meaning of the chains nesting are all explained. The only untouched parameter is `track`, whose meaning is left implicit — a small gap in a description that otherwise fully documents the non-obvious argument.

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 and resource ('Read one device's parameters') and immediately enumerates exactly what is returned. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling mutators like set_device_parameters and from set-level tools like get_set_overview, which it names as the listing alternative.

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 concrete navigation routing: device_path defaults to [0] (the track's first device), and get_set_overview is named as the way to list devices. Rack traversal is spelled out with a worked example ([0, 0, 1] = device 1 in chain 0 of rack 0). It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' exclusion, but the context is unambiguous.

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