get_sd_mux

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool only works for an acquired place (implying a prerequisite) and that USB mux has no read method, which explains a limitation not evident from annotations alone. This is more than what the HIGH calibration example provided, so a 4 is warranted.

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 concise and to the point, with the core purpose in the first line and a clarifying scope note in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important information. No wasted words.

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?

This is a simple getter with one parameter, strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and an output schema. The description covers the essential information: what it retrieves, the prerequisite (acquired place), and the limitation (SD-mux only). Since the output schema exists to define return values, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the 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?

The input schema has one `place` parameter with zero description coverage. The description only indirectly refers to it via 'for an acquired place,' implying the parameter identifies a previously acquired place. This adds some meaning but does not explain the format, valid values, or how it relates to the broader system. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 indicates that the tool retrieves the current SD-mux mode for an acquired place, referencing the underlying `USBSDMuxDriver.get_mode()` method. It also distinguishes itself from any USB mux counterpart by explicitly stating there is no equivalent, making the tool's specific scope 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 description explicitly states that this tool is for SD-mux only (§11.14) and that the `LXAUSBMuxDriver` (usb_mux) has no read method, so there is no `usb_mux` equivalent. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives and prevents incorrect attempts with the USB mux kind.

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