get_device_parameter_range

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 discloses the return data (ranges, quantization) but does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or performance implications. Adequate for a read-only tool but lacks depth.

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 very concise, with two short sentences. It gets straight to the point, though it could benefit from slightly more structure to improve scannability.

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?

Given the output schema presumably documents return values, the description is complete enough for this simple query tool. It covers the key purpose and usage context, leaving minimal gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain the parameters track_index and device_index. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions.

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 it retrieves all parameters with min/max ranges and quantization status. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('parameter range'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_device_parameters or get_device_parameter_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 mentions it's essential for understanding valid value ranges for automation, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like get_device_parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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