get_rack

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and it discloses the returned content (chains and devices), but it omits permissions, error behavior, pagination, or output structure details.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical adds useful context about rack types without bloating the description, though it slightly interrupts the main clause.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the input schema has 0% description coverage. The description gives only a high-level purpose and does not explain parameters, return format, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it 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 0% for all three parameters (kind, track_index, device_index). The description adds no parameter meaning, such as what the indices refer to or how the 'kind' enum changes behavior, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('chains of a rack ... and the devices inside each'), clearly explaining what the tool retrieves. It also gives a purpose ('to edit parameters the macros hide'), which implicitly distinguishes it from generic device-parameter tools, though it does not name a sibling alternative.

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 provides a clear usage context: use this to see inside racks and reach parameters that macros hide. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, but the intended scenario is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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