crosspoint_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals two outputs but does not state that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, nor does it describe error behavior, empty-route behavior, or what happens with invalid coordinates. For a state query, this leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 text is short and has no filler, and the key reported information is front-loaded. However, the description is so terse that it reads as under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness, leaving important invocation details out.

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?

With four required, fully undocumented parameters and zero annotations, this one-sentence description is not enough for reliable invocation. The output schema may clarify return shape, but the agent still lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral expectations. The description only tells what the tool reports, not how or when to call it safely.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to the four required parameters: card, subunit, row, and column. It does not explain how these identify a crosspoint, what formats or ranges are valid, or what card/subunit refer to. The word 'crosspoint' only repeats the tool name and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 identifies a specific query intent ('whether one crosspoint is closed') and names the resource and a second output ('which routes are holding it'). It is distinguishable from mutating siblings like set_crosspoint and route_signal, although it does not explicitly use a verb like 'gets' or 'returns'.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description does not mention set_crosspoint, route_signal, or list_routes as related tools, nor does it state any preconditions such as requiring a known card or reserved crosspoint. The status-query phrasing implies a use case, but the agent is not told how to choose among siblings.

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