get_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a capability precondition and lists the shape of the response, which is real added context. However, it never says what happens when the capability is absent (error vs. degraded result), nor confirms this is a read-only, side-effect-free call.

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, with the capability precondition front-loaded before the payload description. The second sentence is a fragment and the bare field names (supports_z, supports_overrides) are undefined, 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?

For a zero-parameter getter with no output schema, naming the returned fields is exactly the right compensation. The remaining gap is the unexplained meaning of supports_z and supports_overrides, which an agent must infer.

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 no parameters, so per the baseline this lands at 4. The listed parenthetical fields are return values rather than inputs, so they do not mislead about parameter semantics.

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 resource: connection status and device capabilities of the selected device profile, and enumerates the returned fields (device_name, connected, supports_z, supports_overrides). It does not differentiate itself from the similarly named siblings connection_info and get_state_snapshot, so an agent must guess which one to pick.

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?

'Requires capability "state"' gives a useful prerequisite, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus connection_info or get_state_snapshot, which appear to overlap heavily. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and sibling set.

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