get_device_metrics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses a critical side effect: each call advances a sampling period, which is not obvious from the schema. This is valuable context beyond the basic read operation, though it doesn't detail auth or rate limits, which are less critical for a read tool.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys purpose, output, and a key behavioral trait. It is front-loaded with the core function and contains no wasted words.

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?

The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description doesn't address edge cases like invalid device IDs or what happens if no metrics are available. It also doesn't connect to siblings for context, so completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions device_id implicitly as 'device' but doesn't add any extra meaning like format, constraints, or default values. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, and with only one parameter, the baseline is 3.

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 tool reads real-time device metrics and returns metric name/value/unit. It also notes that each call advances one sampling period. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_metric_history and get_scene_snapshot, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage for real-time data retrieval, and the note about advancing a sampling period hints at when to use it (call repeatedly to get successive samples). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_metric_history over this tool for historical data, or provide clear exclusions.

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