board_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes what data is returned but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or may fail. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but this is not stated explicitly, and no behavioral details are given.

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 highly concise: a one-sentence purpose followed by a clear Args section. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and avoids any filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. The tool has only one parameter and a clear purpose. It does not mention prerequisites like board connectivity or error handling, but given the simplicity and the presence of the output schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains board_id as 'The identifier of the board' and provides an example ('board_a'). This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema's bare string type, though it does not cover all possible constraints (e.g., naming patterns).

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('runtime connection, serial metrics, lease state, and buffer statistics for a board'). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on board status rather than actions like serial_write or ssh_exec. The content is unambiguous.

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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it exclude any cases. It implies usage through its purpose, but provides no guidance on choosing between board_status and board_list or other status tools. This is implied usage at best.

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