get_held

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists items, implying a non-destructive read operation, but offers no details on side effects, error behavior, or what 'watchdog status' entails. For a simple getter, this is minimally transparent but not rich.

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?

A single, direct sentence with no padding. It efficiently conveys the core function without irrelevant detail, achieving maximum conciseness for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool has zero parameters and an output schema (assumed to document return structure), the description is sufficient for an agent to call it. The mention of 'watchdog status' adds context beyond the name, though it could elaborate on what that status means. Overall, nothing critical is missing for a straightforward query tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes the interface. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist; a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to document.

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 ('List') and a specific resource ('currently held keys/buttons and watchdog status'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'release_all' and 'keyboard' by implying a read-only state query, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is clear and not tautological.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. It doesn't mention scenarios where 'get_held' is preferred, nor does it state any exclusions. The tool name itself is suggestive, but the description leaves all usage context to inference.

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