get_io

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beyond this by explaining resource_name selection semantics and the echo-back behavior in the result. This provides useful context about how the tool behaves with optional parameters, which is not covered by the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the first states the function, the second details parameter behavior. No filler or repetition of schema details, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential operational context (acquired place, optional resource selection, echo behavior). It does not explicitly state prerequisites like 'must acquire first', but 'for an acquired place' strongly implies this, and sibling tools like acquire_place provide surrounding context. Slightly more detail about output structure or error cases would fully round it out, but it is otherwise complete.

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 carry the full burden. It explains resource_name thoroughly: that it selects among same-class resources, can be omitted for single-IO-resource places, and is echoed back only when given. For place, it indicates it must be an acquired place. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though place could be more explicitly described.

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 returns the current digital IO state of an acquired place, with an explicit reference to HttpDigitalOutputDriver.get(). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_io (which writes) and get_power_state (which reads power) by specifying the exact resource type and 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 description implies usage context by specifying 'for an acquired place' and explains how to use the optional resource_name parameter with a fallback for single-IO-resource places. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, so guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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