Spr list summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral content: the exact facets returned (override counts, spray profile library with usage, full FDS keys for a selected profile) and a cross-reference to SPR-001/SPR-002 rules. No output schema exists, and the return contents are disclosed well, though pagination/size behavior is unaddressed.

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 dense sentences front-load the core purpose and return content, with parameter behavior following. The trailing bulc rules line is useful but reads as an appended annotation rather than integrated guidance, costing a little on structure.

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 must carry return-value meaning, and it does — describing each returned entity and the two parameter-driven modes. An agent can call this correctly and anticipate the payload; only output volume/limit behavior is left unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the preset set reachable via include_presets and clarifying that profile_id returns a single profile with every FDS key plus the heads using it, adding meaning the schema wording alone does not supply.

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 the sprinkler status' — and enumerates exactly what the read returns (nodes/pipes/fittings/risers, heads with spray profile, the profile library). This separates it clearly from mutating spr_* siblings and from spr_get_results, which returns simulation output rather than network status.

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 two modes ('include_presets lists...', 'profile_id returns one profile...'), and 'read-only' signals a safe inspection call. But no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternatives (e.g. spr_get_results, hvac_list_summary) are given, so guidance stays inferred rather than stated.

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