Mhs Meta Info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the returned information (values, directions, effective simulated limits) but does not disclose permissions, failure modes, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the output schema provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous text. Every word contributes to describing the tool's scope, making it appropriately sized for a simple read operation.

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 low complexity, the rich schema (100% coverage), presence of an output schema, and full annotations, the description is nearly complete for invocation. It could be improved by noting when this tool is preferred over mhs_read or mhs_discover, but it is sufficient for an agent that already knows the MHS family.

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 100% description coverage for the single 'device_id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about this parameter beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Inspect') and a specific set of resources ('current device values, directions and effective simulated limits'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from likely siblings such as mhs_read or mhs_discover.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like mhs_read, mhs_write, or mhs_discover, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The purpose statement implies a use case, but no explicit guidance is given.

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