smarthome_status_report

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

The description adds routing context (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose what executing the action actually does or why the annotations mark it as destructive. Since annotations already signal read-write/destructive behavior, the description provides minimal additional behavioral clarity.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action name, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant content.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves the actual purpose of the status report unexplained. Given the destructiveHint annotation and a generic name, the agent cannot judge when this call is appropriate or what consequences it might have, making the description incomplete for confident invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args section is the only explanation for parameters. It clarifies that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string, which is helpful but still vague—no expected keys, JSON shape, or examples are provided.

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: it runs the `status_report` action of the smarthome domain agent, and the smarthome prefix distinguishes it from other domain status-report tools. However, it never explains what the status report contains or produces, so the agent only knows it triggers a named action rather than the meaningful outcome.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many smarthome and dispatch-related alternatives. It only describes the routing mechanism (dispatcher, JWT, tenant, company scope), not the conditions that select this action over smarthome_chat, smarthome_command_plan, or other status-report tools.

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