Hvac list summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's '(read-only)' adds nothing new. The bulc rules pointer is genuine added context (governance/compliance rules and a knowledge-search escape hatch), but the description never says what the summary contains or how fresh/streamed the status is, so it stops short of rich behavioral disclosure.

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 lines with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The rules line is cryptic but serves as a compact cross-reference rather than filler, so the text is efficiently sized.

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 description carries the burden of conveying what comes back, and 'status summary' is left undefined — an agent cannot tell whether it returns counts, per-node detail, or connection health. Annotations cover the safety profile and there are no parameters to document, but the return-shape gap keeps this at minimum-viable.

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 schema has zero parameters at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument call, matching the empty input 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get current HVAC network status summary'. This distinguishes it from the sibling mutation tools (hvac_update_*, hvac_remove_*) and from the more detailed hvac_get_results, since it is explicitly a summary read. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with hvac_get_results or spr_list_summary, so it falls short of a 5.

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 only implied by the word 'summary' and the '(read-only)' tag; there is no statement of when to call this versus hvac_get_results or the other list_* status tools. The rule reference (HVAC-001, GEN-008, GEN-021) hints that a knowledge lookup is expected before or after, but no condition for invoking the tool is given.

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