get_preset_property

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the action without disclosing return format, error behavior, or side effects. For a getter, this is minimal but lacks useful context like what happens if the property doesn't exist.

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 a single, succinct sentence that immediately states the action and resource. No redundant words or filler, making it exceptionally concise and front-loaded.

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 with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, but the description does not elaborate on the return value or usage nuances. Given the lack of annotations, a bit more context (e.g., that the value is returned directly) would improve completeness, though the current level is adequate for a basic getter.

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% for both parameters (preset_name and property_name), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no additional parameter context, hitting the baseline for high 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 tool gets a property value from a Remote Control Preset. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource, and differentiates from siblings like set_preset_property and call_preset_function by focusing on reading a value.

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 implies usage for reading exposed properties from a preset, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like set_preset_property or call_preset_function. No exclusions or alternative-naming is provided, leaving room for ambiguity.

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