get_status

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

The description states 'real-time status' but does not disclose caching, update frequency, or potential resource impact. With no annotations, the burden falls on the description, which lacks detail on behavior boundaries.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, no fluff. Every element is necessary.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description omits details like return structure, field names, or whether data is guaranteed to be present. It lists categories but lacks completeness for full agent understanding.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the data categories returned (pressure, flow, etc.), which is meaningful context beyond the empty 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 clearly states the tool retrieves real-time machine status, specifying sensor data types and machine state. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_info and get_current_shot by focusing on real-time operational 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context implies it's for monitoring, there are no usage exclusions or comparisons to siblings like get_device_info or get_current_shot.

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