get_return_device_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description is consistent and adds value by disclosing the specific data returned (names, values, min/max, display strings). No contradictory or missing behavioral aspects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, one for purpose and one for usage guidance. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with annotations and an output schema (not shown but present), the description adequately covers the essential purpose and usage context. The sibling set tool is referenced, providing navigation. Minor lack of parameter detail does not severely impact completeness.

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%, but the description does not elaborate on the parameters 'device_index' and 'return_index'. The titles in the schema are self-explanatory, yet the description misses an opportunity to clarify their meaning or range. This is a gap given the low schema coverage.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'parameters of a device on a Return track', and specifies the returned fields (names, values, min/max, display strings). It distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'set_return_device_parameter' by indicating its purpose as a precursor.

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 advises 'Call before set_return_device_parameter', providing clear sequential guidance. While it does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context implies this tool is for inspection before modification.

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