get_uptime

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 the data sources, which implies a read-only, non-destructive informational query, and states the output shape (seconds + human string). It does not state device-connection requirements, behavior when multiple devices are attached, or failure modes, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action and output format front-loaded; every clause (return type, sources) adds information and there is no filler.

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 the description's format note is mildly redundant). The remaining gaps are the unexplained optional `serial` parameter and the absence of any context about device connection or default-device resolution, which an agent needs to call this correctly in a multi-device setting.

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 `serial` parameter is never mentioned in the description, so there is no explanation of what it does or what happens when it is omitted (the null default implies a fallback to a default device, but this is unstated). The description therefore does not compensate for the schema's silence.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return device uptime') and even names the underlying sources (/proc/uptime and the `uptime` command), which pins down exactly what is fetched. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_meminfo or get_state, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of prerequisites (e.g., that a device must be connected/selected), and no mention of when to prefer a sibling such as get_state. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the sibling list.

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