get_power_state

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it is gated because it talks to a real hardware path, resource_name selection semantics, and the exact error condition for multi-resource places. Also explains the additive echo behavior in the result. No contradiction with 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 moderately long but every sentence adds value, covering purpose, implementation, gating, resource_name edge cases, and result behavior. The internal reference (§11.14) is a minor obstacle but does not hurt overall clarity.

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 the presence of an output schema and annotations for safety, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage context, resource_name edge cases, and result echo behavior. It is complete for a read tool with these structured fields.

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 fully explains resource_name (omit for single-resource, error naming available resources on multi-resource) and implies place must be an acquired place. The place parameter is not as explicitly described, but it is straightforward.

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 power state for an acquired place, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this read tool from siblings by noting it is gated because it accesses real hardware, unlike always-on Phase 1/2 read 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?

Provides context on when to use this tool (reads via NetworkPowerDriver) and clarifies that it is gated unlike other read tools. It also gives specific guidance on resource_name: omit for single-power-resource places, and warns that an unnamed pick on multi-resource places is an error. It does not explicitly name alternative tools but the context is sufficient.

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