get_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what state is surfaced, but nothing about polling frequency, staleness, or cost of calling it repeatedly for a live-updating snapshot.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding. The content inventory comes first and the sibling-routing instruction is placed last, which is the right front-loading for a status reader.

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?

With no output schema, the description's field enumeration does the job of telling the agent what it will receive, and it defers events/supervisor/speed to job_status. The one soft spot is the word 'compact', which hints at a fuller variant without saying what was omitted or where to get it.

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, which is the baseline-4 case. There is no parameter semantics to clarify, and the description correctly spends no words on argument handling.

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 names a specific resource ('machine state') and enumerates its contents precisely: status, heaters with current/target, axes with position/homed/limits, and the current job with file/layer/progress. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling job_status, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening schemas.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: 'For events, supervisor and speed use job_status.' That is a clear when-to-use-elsewhere signal. It does not, however, address other closely related siblings such as get_machine_info or get_sensors, so the differentiation is partial rather than complete.

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