nexus_device_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond these annotations: emulators/syntax checkers are always available, which is specific to this status checker and useful for the agent. 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 two short sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the second sentence adding a relevant caveat. There is no wasted or redundant information, and the structure is ideal for quick comprehension.

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 simplicity, strong annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance. The lack of parameter detail is a minor gap, but overall the description is complete for a straightforward status-check tool.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'device' with no description (0% coverage). The description does not explain what values or format 'device' should take, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name. With schema coverage so low, the description should compensate but does not, making parameter semantics unclear.

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's function: reporting whether a device is online. It uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('device'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like nexus_list_devices and nexus_auth_status by focusing on status rather than listing or auth. The added note about emulators/syntax checkers reinforces the specific scope.

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 for when to use the tool—checking device online status—and includes a useful caveat that emulators/syntax checkers are always available, which informs expected behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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