rs_controller_status

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

The description implies a read operation by stating 'Get controller state', but it does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 concise phrase that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient but could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., separating the return fields list).

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides some context by listing fields, but it does not explain possible values, format, or usage nuances. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds value by listing the specific state components returned (systemState, runMode, simulation), which aids understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves controller state via SDK and lists specific attributes (systemState, runMode, simulation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rws_controller_status, which likely uses a different interface.

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 this tool versus alternatives (e.g., rws_controller_status). The description lacks context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or exclusions.

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