get_device_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly describes the return JSON structure and field semantics, including special cases like value_items and display_value. It does not mention error behavior or read-only guarantees, but for a 'get' tool, the return format and targeting details are sufficient and valuable.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and then follows with a structured list of fields and usage guidance. While it is a bit dense, every clause adds necessary information (return format, field semantics, usage workflow). It could be slightly more concise but remains well-organized and efficient.

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?

For a read-only discovery tool, this description is remarkably complete. It explains what it does, what it returns in detail, how to use it (discover then call set_device_parameter), and how to target special tracks. Given the presence of an output schema, the return-field explanation goes above and beyond, covering gaps that annotations might normally fill.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the track parameter by explaining special values ('master'/'return:N'), but it does not explicitly describe track_index or device_index beyond their schema titles. Given the self-explanatory names and partial description compensation, a score of 3 reflects acceptable but incomplete enhancement.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List every automatable parameter of a device on a track.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinct purpose, especially compared to siblings like set_device_parameter and get_macros, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover what you can change, then call set_device_parameter.' This names an alternative tool and provides a clear workflow context. It also clarifies special target tracks with "track='master'/'return:N' targets those tracks," giving concrete guidance beyond general usage.

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