IDM Systemstatus

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the exact return fields, revealing the tool's behavioral output without relying on the output schema. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the verb and resource, followed by a bullet-like list of returned fields and a clear return type statement. Every sentence contributes information without redundancies.

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 zero-parameter, read-only getter with comprehensive annotations and an output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, return content, and usage context. There are no gaps in required information.

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 input schema confirms this with 100% coverage. With no parameters to describe, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter-specific details.

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 explicitly states the tool reads the general system status of the IDM heat pump and enumerates the specific fields returned (e.g., operating mode, fault number, smart-grid status, PV surplus). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling getters like idm_get_temperatures or idm_get_compressor_status.

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 provides a clear context by listing exactly what status information is returned, making it obvious when a high-level system overview is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full guidance.

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