get_devices

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

The genuine get_devices content is highly transparent: it explains the configure_needed flag, why a one-parameter third-party plug-in signals an unconfigured device, that the probe only settles one-vs-many, that order can change, and that the call lives on the Song. With no annotations, however, the description carries the full burden, and the appended paragraph describing instrument replacement and non-recoverable loss misattributes destructive behavior to this listing call.

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 useful content is front-loaded in a clean first sentence, but the description then drifts into a move_device tangent, a garbled measured fragment, and a loading-order paragraph that appears to belong to load_device. Length without coherent structure makes the agent's parse more expensive, not less.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be spelled out, and the core configure_needed semantics are covered thoroughly. Still, kind is never documented, edge cases like a missing track are absent, and the off-topic load_device content adds confusion rather than completeness.

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 was expected to compensate, but it never explains the kind parameter (default track) or how to address the track. The only parameter-related hint is 'a track's device chain', which adds nothing beyond the schema's track integer property.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: it lists a track's device chain with names, class names, on/off, and parameter counts. It also distinguishes itself from describe by pointing to it for the full parameter list. However, the trailing paragraphs about move_device and loading order dilute the core purpose and could be mistaken for this tool's own responsibilities.

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?

It gives one explicit routing rule: call describe with with_parameters=True for the full parameter list, and it mentions lom_call for song.move_device. But it never says when get_devices is preferable to get_track or describe, and the final paragraph about loading order reads as advice for load_device, which is misleading in this context.

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