Auto Switch Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the return payload (running state, monitored inputs, hold time, transition type, current speaker, switch count, runtime), which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences: the purpose first, then a compact enumerated return list. No filler, and the critical action is front-loaded.

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 return-field enumeration does the work an agent needs to decide whether this tool answers its question. Only minor gap is the absence of any note on freshness/liveness of the stats or relation to atem_get_status.

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?

Zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. The description correctly makes no parameter claims.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check if auto-switch mode is currently running and get its configuration and stats.' This distinguishes it from general reads like atem_get_status, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description — an agent knows this is the read counterpart to atem_auto_switch_on/off — but there is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus atem_get_status or whether polling is appropriate.

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