get_device_parameters

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses key behavior: default mode returns a summary grouped by category with counts, while category or show_all returns full details. This is valuable and goes beyond a generic list tool, though it does not explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect guarantees.

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 well-structured with a clear one-line purpose, a labeled parameter list, and a concise explanation of output modes. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (5 params, rack chains, output modes) and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects. An output schema exists, so detailed return values aren't required in text, and the description still clarifies the summary/detail distinction, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The description explains every parameter with meaningful details beyond the schema: track_index is 1-based, device_index defaults to 1, chain_index indicates rack chain with 0 meaning no chain, category filters and returns details, show_all triggers full detail mode. This fully compensates for the 0% 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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'List parameters for a device on a track.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_device_parameter (which writes) and describe_device_api (which describes APIs).

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 gives clear context on how to use the tool, including default vs. category/show_all modes, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings are provided.

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