Get light state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that the call returns state in one call and specifies the fields returned, which is useful but not extensive. No behavioral trade-offs, permissions, or side effects are mentioned, but the annotation covers the core safety profile.

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, front-loaded with the action and key content. The second sentence adds usage context without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, output schema exists) and the description covers the purpose, key return fields, and usage context. With annotations declaring read-only and output schema handling return structure, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 100%: the only parameter 'device' is fully described in the schema with guidance to use list_devices and fallback to default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it relies on the schema, which is already comprehensive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('current state of a Twinkly device'), and the specific contents (operation mode, brightness, saturation, color). It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by positioning itself as 'the go-to read tool before changing anything', which implies it is the primary state-fetching tool.

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 provides clear usage context: use this tool as the primary read before making any changes. It implies that set_* tools should follow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is actionable and unambiguous for an agent deciding when to call this tool.

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