ADT Security Dashboard

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful non-schema fact: credentials are supplied only from the server environment, so no caller auth is needed. It says nothing, however, about what the 'refresh' action does behaviorally (poll, re-authenticate, latency), which is the main undisclosed behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and no filler. The credential sentence is relevant to invocation. Slightly lean for the information load, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, the description omits the action parameter's semantics and offers no sibling routing, which are the two gaps an agent calling this tool would trip on.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'action' parameter is only an enum of view/refresh with a default. The description never mentions the action switch or explains the difference between viewing and refreshing, so it fails to compensate for the schema's total lack of parameter documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read the current ADT security system and device state. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling 'open-standalone-dashboard', leaving the agent to guess which of the two to pick for dashboard state.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and none of the alternatives (get-alerts, get-event-history, get-camera-snapshot, open-standalone-dashboard) are referenced. 'Read the current... state' weakly implies a snapshot use case, but the agent gets no routing help.

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