starlink_diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the fields returned, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no authentication, or is non-destructive. The output schema likely covers return structure, but the description adds no explicit safety or side-effect information.

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 two short paragraphs, with the main action and core items front-loaded. It is efficient and free of fluff, though the second sentence repeats somewhat the list from the first (e.g., firmware, alerts). Still, it earns its place by elaborating the fields, so it's concise overall.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It provides the essential context ('troubleshooting') and lists all key data points. The only gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance toward siblings, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent choosing among multiple similar tools.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. Per calibration, the baseline is 4 for a no-parameter tool; the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. It adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exists, which 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Get hardware diagnostics') and enumerates the exact data points (firmware, GPS status, alert count). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like starlink_status or starlink_alerts by focusing on hardware-level diagnostics, so an agent can differentiate without inspecting further.

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?

The phrase 'Useful for troubleshooting' gives a general context but stops short of explicit when-to-use versus alternatives. It does not state when NOT to use this tool or point to a specific sibling for narrower tasks (e.g., starlink_alerts for alert details), leaving some inference to the agent.

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