fleet_status

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the output fields but does not explicitly indicate that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or any authentication requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and lists the key output attributes compactly, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), and the description covers the main output aspects. However, it lacks caveats about data freshness, behavior on non-existent fleets, or permissions, which would be valuable given the absence of annotations.

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 'fleet' is referenced as 'in a fleet' in the description, which confirms it is the target fleet, but adds little beyond the schema. The description does not explain the expected format (e.g., fleet ID vs name) or other constraints, leaving the parameter semantics minimally enriched.

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 identifies the resource (fleet devices) and the information returned (health status, failure count, connectivity). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like fleet_operation_status or fleet_pool_status by focusing on device health, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use fleet_status versus alternatives such as fleet_operation_status or fleet_pool_status. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the decision to the agent's inference.

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