ECP Query (read-only)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's statement 'Read-only — does not change device state' reinforces without contradicting. It adds the positioning as 'go-to inspection tool' which is contextual, but no new behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The description is consistent and adds a small amount of extra context.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and examples, followed by read-only clarification and routing to the alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 only two parameters, no enums, and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what the tool returns, how to choose endpoints, and when to use alternatives. The annotations already handle safety, so nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameter descriptions, but the description adds meaningful guidance: it explains endpoint selection via list_query_presets or /query/* paths, and specifically suggests '/query/apps' for enumerating app IDs. This goes beyond the schema's examples and helps the agent choose the correct parameter values.

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 runs read-only ECP GET queries for device information, lists example payloads (device info, installed apps, etc.), and distinguishes it from the sibling ecp_post by noting it is for inspection. It names the alternative and the exact condition to choose it, so an agent can easily tell this tool apart.

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?

Explicitly names ecp_post as the alternative for state-changing operations and instructs how to enumerate app IDs via '/query/apps'. It also mentions using list_query_presets or any /query/* path, giving clear context on when to invoke this tool versus others. No ambiguity remains.

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