protect_get_speaker

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context: warns that additional device-specific fields are not verified and advises inspecting live responses. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent manage expectations about data reliability.

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 two sentences: first states purpose and return fields, second adds a crucial caveat. Every sentence provides value; no redundancy or filler. Efficient and well-structured.

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 (not shown but indicated true) and annotations, the description covers essential aspects: parameters, key return fields, and a reliability warning. It could mention error handling for missing IDs, but that is likely covered by the schema. For a simple read tool, this is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter described as 'Speaker ID'. The description does not add further semantics beyond the schema, but it reinforces that the ID identifies a specific speaker. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get full details' and the resource 'speaker by ID'. It lists the returned fields and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (e.g., protect_get_camera) by specifying 'speaker' and noting the API version and caveat about unverified fields. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 tool name and sibling tool list (e.g., protect_get_camera, protect_get_light) make it clear this tool is for speakers. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on selection.

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