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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it reveals the single aggregated query to the time-series store, the all-channels scope, and its relationship to socket events. It does not explicitly state read-only status or return shape, but the listing semantics and 'live numbers' make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the most important information about scope and response content, with later sentences adding efficiency and socket-context details. It contains no filler, though the third sentence is slightly dense with socket event names.

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 parameterless, read-style fleet list with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the resource scope, the data categories (state, live numbers), and the aggregation behavior. Exact response shape is not specified, but there are no input parameters to misuse and the data categories are stated clearly.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the empty schema covers 100% of the contract, so parameter-level documentation is not needed. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to explain.

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 states a specific verb ('list'), a clear resource ('collector channels of the caller'), and scopes it to the whole fleet with state and live numbers. It also distinguishes itself from per-device access by emphasizing 'one call for the whole fleet' and 'never one per device.'

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?

It explicitly frames the tool as the REST/synchronous alternative to the dashboard's socket subscription and explains data equivalence, giving a clear alternative. It implies when not to use it (per-device queries) via 'never one per device,' though it does not name a sibling tool such as list_device_inputs.

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