fleet_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an asynchronous behavior via 'operation snapshot keyed by operation_id' and lists per-device result statuses (success/unreachable/timeout/still_queued). However, it does not explain the operation lifecycle, how to retrieve final results, or any side effects/auth requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value—scope ('across every device'), optional subsetting, and the response format. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core read operation and result statuses, and an output schema exists to detail return values. However, the mention of 'operation_id' introduces a follow-up workflow (likely fleet_operation_status) that is not referenced, and key parameters like priority/timeout_s are unexplained. This leaves meaningful gaps for a 5-parameter async tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only adds meaning for 'addresses' via 'or a subset by address.' Parameters 'fleet' and 'resource' are self-explanatory, but 'priority' and 'timeout_s' are not described at all, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Read one resource across every device in a fleet, or a subset by address.' This is specific and differentiates from siblings like fleet_write (write) and fleet_scan/watchers (other operations). The verb 'read' and resource scope are explicit.

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 description implies a clear use case (reading a resource fleet-wide or by subset) but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like fleet_status or fleet_operation_status. It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or mention of sibling tools, so usage context is present but not fully elaborated.

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