get_device_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly through 'List' plus the returned fields, but says nothing about permissions, whether values are refreshed live, or side effects, so coverage of traits beyond the return shape is thin.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the only non-obvious input rule. No filler or repetition of structured data.

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 no output schema, the description usefully documents the return shape (raw vs displayed value, min/max, switch options), which is exactly what is needed for a getter. The remaining gap is the unexplained indexing parameters, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 must compensate. It does explain chain and chain_device (and ties them to the nested-rack case), but track_index, device_index, and the kind enum remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving 3 of 5 parameters unclarified.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List every parameter of a device') and enumerates exactly what is returned (index, name, raw value, min, max, displayed value, switch options). The read/list framing cleanly distinguishes it from the write sibling set_device_parameters without needing to open either schema.

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 supplies one concrete usage cue: for a device nested in a rack, pass chain + chain_device and see get_rack. That is a useful conditional, but it never states when to use this tool versus set_device_parameters/set_parameter_real, so the when-not guidance is left to inference.

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