hardware_lease_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Drives no device' and adds non-obvious context: which incident flags mean recovery is needed and that other projects' incidents are not actionable. It adds real behavioral meaning beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Content is dense with backtick-quoted field names but every clause carries information, and the core purpose ('Read who holds this bench') is front-loaded. It is compact for the amount of return-field semantics it conveys, though the jargon-heavy list is somewhat dense to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return shape — and it does, naming the key fields (bench_held, held_devices, blocked, cleanup_reasons, auto_recoverable, quarantine_guidance, next_step, incident_stands, standing_incidents). It is essentially complete for a zero-arg, read-only status call, with only minor gaps in overall response structure.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to compensate for. It spends its words on return-value meaning instead, which is appropriate for a no-arg status tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read who holds this bench') and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It also references the sibling hardware_recover, but does not differentiate against most other status-oriented siblings (bench_run_status, debug_get_session_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?

It gives a conditional routing rule: only `incident_stands: true` requires hardware_recover, otherwise the next hardware call settles it. It also adds an exclusion — `standing_incidents` are other projects' incidents and not the caller's to clear. This is clear when-to-use and when-not guidance, though it stops short of an exhaustive alternative map.

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