Adapter and meter status

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact returned information, defines meter.attached false as no powered meter, and explains NOT_FOUND as the adapter not advertising with a concrete recovery action. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a read-only status tool.

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 dense but front-loaded: the core status question comes first, followed by returned fields and failure semantics. It is slightly run-on in listing adapter and meter fields, but nearly every phrase carries useful information.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming adapter address, firmware, battery, meter model, serial, memory, clock, saved-item count, and key failure states. It omits response formatting details, but is otherwise complete for this read-only status probe.

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 only parameter, max_wall, is fully documented in the schema with its default, bounds, and TIMEOUT behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter, so the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise question and resource: whether the IR3000 FC adapter is reachable and a Fluke 287/289 meter is attached and powered. It also enumerates the adapter and meter fields returned, so an agent can tell this is a connectivity/status probe rather than a measurement read or self-test.

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 implies the tool is used to verify adapter and meter presence before other operations, and gives troubleshooting guidance for NOT_FOUND. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over selftest, log_status, or query, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the NOT_FOUND remedy.

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